Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L07-024 - CITY OF TUKWILA - TOWNHOUSE CODE AMENDMENTSTOWNHOUSE & ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS CITY WIDE L07-024 City of a'L1kw1 Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared June 19, 2007 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TOWNHOUSE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS AND SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENTSHEARING DATE: June 28, 2007 NOTIFICATION: Notice of Public Hearing published June 12, 2007. FILE NUMBER: L07 -024 Zoning Code Amendments REQUEST: Hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council about the proposed townhouse amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. LOCATION: City wide STAFF: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor ATTACHMENTS: A. Map of under - developed multi - family zoned lots B. Townhouse Examples C. Comparison of Tukwila's current MDR and HDR standards to townhouse standards in other cities D. Figure 18 -5 MDR and HDR Modulation E. Annotated Multi - Family Design Guidelines F. Seattle Townhouse Standards G.Olympia Townhouse Standards H. Proposed Code Amendments in Strikeout/Underline Format Steven M Mullet, Mayor NG Page 1 06/21/2007 8:24:00 PM Q Ta-v -k-us DOC - - 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • • BACKGROUND DCD has periodically been approached by developers interested in building zero -lot line or fee simple townhomes on individual lots (lot lines would run through the buildings). Due to Zoning Code development standards such as minimum lot sizes and side yard setback requirements only condominiums or apartments can be built in our multi - family zones, though they could be built in townhouse form. However, developers think that there is a stronger market for this type of housing on individually owned lots rather than as condominiums and the insurance requirements for condominiums make many small projects unfeasible. Providing for an additional type of housing ownership (townhouses on individual zero -lot line lots) would expand the housing options of Tukwila's residents and provide multi - family property owners an alternative to apartment development. In addition to the technical changes needed to create individual townhouse lots changes to Tukwila's bulk and coverage limitations may encourage the market to provide townhouses. Because townhouses are typically significantly larger than stacked apartments and condominiums under the current code requirements fewer townhouse units could be built on a given site making them a less attractive development option. The CAP discussed the proposal on April 10 and moved it to the COW without a recommendation. They discussed a range of issues from the necessity for common children's play areas, concern about blank walls and the environmental impacts of dense development. The COW discussed the issue on May 14 and expressed concern about assuring adequate recreation and open space in future developments; the need for flexibility in offering a variety of housing options in the City; the assurance that privacy will be considered for adjoining single family homes that may be affected by tiered setback requirements; and the importance of a design review process that involves the public. ANALYSIS Due to Tukwila's prevailing pattern of narrow, deep lots in most infill situations townhouses would be perpendicular to the street, rather than the traditional row house with stoops along the street and alley access behind. See Attachment A for examples of some under- developed multi - family zoned lots in Tukwila that might attract townhouse development. While there are some larger sites, most have their street frontage at the narrow end of the lot. Below is an example of a typical market driven design for an 80'x240' infill lot showing the individual parcel lines through the buildings. NG Page 2 06/21/2007 8:24:00 PM Q: \Townhouses\PC_Townhouse. DOC ,V rT See Attachment B for examples of townhouses in Tukwila and Renton. M The following areas of the Zoning Code would require amendments in order to allow for construction of townhouses on individual platted lots. See Attachment C for a comparison of Tukwila's current standards to townhouse standards in other cities. The shaded cells on the chart are areas where staff is suggesting changes. • Minimum Lot Area Though the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone allows for one unit per 3,000 sf of lot area there is a minimum lot size of 8,000 sf. Similarly in High Density Residential (HDR) one unit is allowed for every 2,000 sf of lot area but the minimum lot size is 9,600 sf. Townhomes can be developed at these densities, but the minimum lot size requirements would need to be applied to the project as a whole rather than the individual townhouse lots. • Average Lot Width The minimum lot width of 60 feet required in the MDR and HDR zones would need to be applied to the project as a whole. Most townhouse lots are between 15 and 25 feet in width and 80 to 100 feet in depth. • Setbacks The side setbacks would need to be applied to the project as a whole (because the buildings are attached) and replaced by a minimum separation between townhouse buildings. In addition to the above code modifications which are necessary in order to create individual lots, optional changes to the following areas of the code would allow for a development pattern and density closer to what is being built elsewhere. If we did not change these bulk and coverage requirements the market might continue to favor apartment development. • Setbacks The front, second front, side and rear setbacks in MDR and HDR all increase for NG Page 3 06/21/2007 8:24:00 PM Q: \Townhouses \PC Townhouse.DOC • • second, third and fourth floors and are significantly larger than those required by adjacent jurisdictions. Since townhomes are almost always two to four stories in height these tiered setbacks may make development difficult on narrow lots even if they were applied to the project as a whole. Single family homes are permitted up to 30' in height (the same height allowed in MDR) and only have 5' side and 10' rear setbacks. • Landscape The perimeter landscape requirements should be applied to the project as a whole to buffer the adjacent properties. • Modulation Townhouse buildings are typically three stories tall, three to five units long, and between 45 and 125 feet in length. In both MDR and HDR buildings are limited to 50 feet in length unless they provide modulation, see Figure 18 -5 at Attachment D. For a three story building either 4 feet of modulation in both the roofline and building wall (horizontal and vertical dimensions) or 8 feet of modulation in one of these dimensions is required every 2 units. This would allow an increase in building length to 100 feet in MDR and 200 feet in HDR. On a flat site it would be difficult to provide vertical modulation and on a narrow site it would create significant inefficiencies to provide 8 feet of horizontal modulation. • Development Coverage The development coverage limitation of 50% in MDR and HDR requires that half of the property be kept as landscape, pedestrian or recreation area. That would be difficult to meet at zoned densities with the typical townhouse development pattern given the size of the units, parking and fire access requirements. • Recreation Space The development standards in Tukwila's multi - family zones are based on a garden apartment model with communal open space rather than ground level private space. Tukwila's MDR and HDR zones require 400 square feet of recreation space per unit with a 1,000 sq foot minimum and 25% devoted to children's play area. Other city's codes require between 200 and 300 square feet of private recreation space per unit with some requiring smaller amounts of common space in addition to the private space. Though high, the space per unit may be feasible as a combination of yards and balconies, however the restriction that setback areas may not count toward this total (TMC 18.52.060) would not, so long as the yard had a minimum dimension of 10' in all directions. NG Page 4 06/21/2007 8:24:00 PM Q: \Townhouses \PC_Townhouse. DOC PROPOSAL • • Private yard that includes side yard setback area The current requirement for at least 25% of the recreation space to be devoted to shared children's play areas raises issues for townhome developments. The concern among developers is that the maintenance and liability for these areas would be a burden to small, self - managed townhouse projects. One of the reasons that zero -lot line townhouses are more appealing to buyers than condominiums is the perception that they are more like single family houses and do not have large monthly homeowner dues. One approach would be to only require shared play areas for developments of ten or more units (subdivisions). • Multi - Family Design Guidelines The design guideline booklet applicable to Tukwila's multi - family zones is based on a suburban garden apartment development pattern. While the guidelines in the booklet are "optional and illustrative" rather than binding there are several that would be difficult or undesirable to meet in a townhouse development pattern, see Attachment E. For example the guidelines state that open space should be clustered for common use rather than separated into private yards. In addition many of the landscape and modulation standards have been codified into the Zoning Code since the time of the guideline adoption and so are redundant. Staff circulated the discussion of proposed changes to five developers who have expressed an interest in townhouse development in Tukwila. Their feedback has been used to shape the proposed changes which are grouped by subject area below. These include both the minimum changes necessary to allow platting of townhouse lots as well as additional changes that would bring Tukwila's standards closer to prevailing market driven development patterns. Subdivision Code One approach for how to handle this type of development is to treat townhouse and cottage projects similarly to a binding site plan. This would apply lot size, lot width, setback and landscape standards to the original "parent" parcel rather than the "unit" lots that contain the individual townhomes, see the Seattle code at Attachment F for an example. This NG Page 5 06/21/2007 8:24:00 PM Q: \Townhouses\PC Townhouse.DOC • • would result in the same treatment adjacent to the neighboring properties while allowing a different ownership pattern. Other than that change both the short plat and subdivision platting process could follow the standard procedure with preliminary approval, infrastructure construction, final approval and then building permit. Some cities allow the building foundations to be constructed prior to final approval along with the rest of the site improvements so that the lot lines can be drawn accurately through the existing common walls, see the Olympia regulations at Attachment G for an example. If the buildings are constructed after the plat sometimes field conditions require boundary line adjustments to meet the as built conditions. MDR/HDR Zoning Standards In addition to the technical changes needed to allow platting of townhouse sized lots the following modifications to the bulk and coverage requirements would allow for a more market driven development pattern and density closer to what is achievable for stacked apartments or condominiums. • Setbacks Setback requirements should be applied to the parent lot rather than the unit lots since their purpose is to protect neighboring properties. The front, second front and side tiered setbacks should not increase after the second floor. This would still provide a buffer to the adjacent property while allowing for consistent floorplates for the townhouses. A new building separation standard should be adopted for townhouse buildings of 10' for 2 story buildings and 20' for 3 and 4 story buildings. • Modulation Because townhouse units are generally narrow the modulation requirements would pose a significant constraint on the design. In exchange for shorter allowable building lengths the modulation requirements should not be increased for three and four story buildings. • Development Coverage It is not possible to achieve zoned density with a typical townhouse product under the 50% development coverage limitation. Townhouses are typically twice as large as an average apartment usually with 2 to 3 bedrooms and a garage. A 75% development coverage would be similar to the impervious surface limitations common in other jurisdictions. • Recreation Space Setback areas that are part of a private yard for an individual unit should be allowed to count toward the 400 sf recreation space requirement. Since the small private yards are generally fenced the height of opaque fences along street frontages should be limited to 4 feet, with lattice or other open material allowed up to 6 feet. NG Page 6 06/21/2007 8:24:00 PM Q: \Townhouses \PC_Townhouse.DOC OPTIONS • • The current requirement for at least 25% of the recreation space to be devoted to shared children's play areas should start with developments of ten or more lots. This would ensure that the play area is large enough to be usable and that there is a critical mass of owners to share the burden of maintenance. Design Review The multi - family Design Review Criteria at 18.60.050 C. will work for townhouse development, but it would be helpful to have illustrations to provide design guidance for issues specific to this building type. The optional Multi- Family Design Guidelines booklet has a number of sections that may not be applicable to townhouses, such as the child play area guidelines, parking lot standards and building separation requirements. In addition it does not provide illustrations that reflect townhouse density or building types. Staff proposes that it be amended for townhouse developments as shown in Attachment E. Staff proposes that projects following the short subdivision process (up to 9 lots) be subject to administrative design review and projects requiring a subdivision be subject to public hearing design review. The PC has five choices: 1) Recommend that no changes be made to the Zoning Code, Subdivision Code or Design Guidelines; or 2) Make only those changes to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes necessary to allow the platting of individual townhouse lots; and 3) Make additional changes to the Zoning Code requirements for tiered setbacks, modulation, development coverage and common recreation space; and/or 4) Modify the Multi- Family Design Guidelines with illustrations and design guidance specific to townhouse development; and /or 5) Allow townhouse developments of up to 9 lots to go through administrative rather than public hearing design review. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends modifying the Zoning Code, Subdivision Code and design criteria as listed above in order to allow for zero -lot line townhouses. The PC recommendation will be sent to Council for final review. NG Page 7 06/21/2007 8:24:00 PM Q: \Townhouses\PC_Townhouse. DOC - • * I ..-,-; ' T .■ V .17) 1 1 i 1 nit!ii ' fk ' 4 l 'oh2ntH 1 It . 411,01i-tf,:41 13 I 47 , f* =ilt, rt !,4 1 tnt:. To n t sc E tlnples Hotly crest Townhomes l ukwila 2,200 to 3,100 sf lots (w; %c reads) 1,300 to 1,650 sf houses 2 bedroom 2 bath Apprex. $280,000 22 units, 3 have resold drying the last 4 years ATTACHMENT B Park Pointe on the Hill Condominiums --- Tukwila 3,000 sf lots, 1.100 sf houses 2 and 3 bedroom 3 bath Approx. $200000 9 units, 3 have resold since 1995 • 4 t Cobblestone Townhornes - Renton 1,500 to 2,600 sf lots (w/o roads , 1,400 to 1,800 sf houses 3 bedroom 2 bath Approx. $300,000 .0411111111, Standard Density U n its/Acre Height Max # Attached Max Build. Length Lot Width Impervious Surface Building Coverage Setbacks: Front - 1st Floor Front - 2nd Front - 3rd Front - 4th 2nd Front - 1st 2nd Front - 2nd 2nd Front - 3rd 2nd Front - 4th Side - 1st Side - 2nd Side - 3rd Side - 4th Rear - 1st Rear - 2nd Rear - 3rd Rear - 4th Recreation Space sf per unit Other Jurisdiction Tukwila MDR Seattle Renton SeaTac Olympia Max 14.5 30 50', 100' w/ Modulation 15 20 30 7.5 10 15 10 20 20 (30 next to LDR) 10 20 20 (30 next to LDR) 400, 25% shared play area HDR Max 22 45 50', 200' w/ Modulation 15 20 30 45 7.5 10 15 22.5 10 20 20 (30 next to LDR) 10 20 20 (30 next to LDR) 30 400, 25 % . shared play area Lowrise 1-4 25 + 10 for pitched roof 50% 5' Min, Av. Of adjacent 8' Av, 6' Min 8' Av, 6' Min 9' Av, 6' Min 11' Av, 6' Min 25' or 15% lot depth Average 300 private R -14 Min 8 Max 14 2 Stories or 30' 3 to 6 115' 20' or 25' 50% Front access 20', w /Alley 10' House 10' Garage 18' 5', 10' when next to SF 15' RM Min 14 Max 35 3 Stories or 35' 14' 85% 75% 5' 10' 3' 5' T Min 12 Max 24 35' 180' Along street 55% 10 -15' (0' with design) 5' (0' with design) 10' (0' with design) 200 private, 75 shared Alley Access Required R6 -12 Min 6 Max 12 35' 4 16' 70% 70% 20', 10' w/ side or rear parking 10' 10' 20' Attachment C • http : / /www.ci.tukwila.wa.us /dcd/fig 18 -5. jpg Vertical Modulation Horizontal Modulation • City of Tukwila MtFy De 'UMW Fare 185 Attachment D Page 1 of 1 http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/dcd/fig18-5.jpg Vertical lUlodulation Horizontal Modulation City of Tukw Muttifardy Design G(dellne Fire 18.6 Attachment D Page 1 of 1 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared May 16, 2007 HEARING DATE: May 24, 2007 NOTIFICATION: Notice of Public Hearing published May 9, 2007. FILE NUMBER: L07 -024 Code Amendments REQUEST: Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council about an amendment to the Sensitive Area Ordinance allowing the DCD Director to establish the number of wetland mitigation bank credits needed for specific off -site mitigation proposals. LOCATION: City wide STAFF: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor ATTACHMENTS: A: Springbrook Creek Mitigation Credit Table B: Sample Sensitive Area Special Permission Staff Report C. Draft Amendment to TMC 18.45.090 Wetland Uses, Alterations and Mitigation BACKGROUND Wetland mitigation banking as a tool for off setting unavoidable impacts to wetlands is increasingly becoming more important, and the City is starting to see proposals for off -site mitigation at banks. A wetland mitigation bank is the consolidation of small, fragmented wetland mitigation projects into a large contiguous site where creation, restoration and enhancement is carried out in advance of the impacts. Banks are established under a formal and rigorous permitting process. The City's current Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO) permits off -site mitigation, and even mitigation outside the city limits of Tukwila, as long as the mitigation site is within the same river basin. The current proposal would not change that section of the code. The mitigation ratios established in the SAO apply to both on -site and off -site mitigation. The SAO does not address transferring mitigation to a mitigation bank, which uses "credits" as opposed to acreage in determining the amount of mitigation needed. Determining if the amount of mitigation bank credits meets the City's mitigation ratios is not straightforward. CL Q:\2007 SAO Amendment \CAP Memo.doc Page 1 of 3 05/17/2007 11:46:00 AM Steven M Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 Proposed Code Amendment to Sensitive Areas Ordinance Mitigation ratios applied to projects that are carrying out wetland mitigation in conjunction with a development project are typically higher than those ratios in a mitigation bank, because they factor in the element of risk that the wetland mitigation might fail. In wetland mitigation banks, however, the theory is that the wetland will already be mitigated well in advance of any development proposal — thus reducing the risk of mitigation failure (if the bank fails, credits cannot be released). Wetland mitigation banks typically take into account the type of mitigation (restoration, creation, rehabilitation, enhancement) as our code does, but in addition, the credits are also based on the type (class) of wetland that has been created, rehabilitated or enhanced, see Attachment A for the relationship between the acreage of mitigation, ratio applied and resulting credit value at the Springbrook Creek Bank in Renton. The City recently processed two land use applications submitted by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) that provide examples of the problem presented by transferring wetland mitigation to a wetland mitigation bank, see Attachment B. WSDOT sought approval to transfer mitigation for impacts to wetlands along Hwy 518 and I -405 to the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank, a mitigation bank area of over 125 acres located in Renton. The location of the highway construction on both Hwy 518 and I -405 and the sensitive areas made it difficult to find room to adequately mitigate for wetland impacts in the remaining right -of -way. In addition, the size of the remaining sensitive areas available in the right -of -way would limit the effectiveness of any mitigation implemented. Thus off -site mitigation makes sense in these two cases. WSDOT proposed withdrawal of a certain number of credits from the bank as the proposed wetland mitigation. Credits in a mitigation bank are based on the net ecological benefit provided and are determined on the basis of Department of Ecology mitigation ratios, the kinds of mitigation carried out at the bank (wetland creation, restoration, and/or enhancement) and the total acreage for each type of mitigation. The number of credits needed for mitigation is based on the type (classification) of the wetland being impacted. The amount of mitigation built into the value of a credit does not directly equate to Tukwila's SAO mitigation ratios, which are based on acreage impacted and do not distinguish between types of wetlands in applying the mitigation ratios. This issue will arise again when applications are submitted for the Strander Blvd. extension, which will disturb Type 1 wetlands. The City of Renton will be requesting permission to carry out wetland mitigation in the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. WSDOT will also likely want to use the bank for future highway construction in Tukwila. Unless our SAO is amended to permit a determination of the equivalency of a specific bank's credits to the mitigation area required per our SAO requirements we will not be able to ensure that the net ecological benefits at the mitigation bank compensate for the wetland impacts. The CAP discussed this at their April 24 meeting. They had some suggested changes to the code language which have been incorporated into the proposal but did not have a consensus recommendation. The COW discussed this at the May 14 meeting and while they opted to forward the amendment on to the PC there were concerns about the use of mitigation sites outside of Tukwila and the degree of flexibility granted to the DCD Director's decision. NG Page 2 of 3 05/16/2007 9:50:00 PM Q:\2007 SAO Amendment \CAP Memo.doc Proposed Code Amendment to Sensitive Areas Ordinance DISCUSSION Only isolated Type 3 wetlands or wetlands in the path of an essential public facility may be filled and mitigated off -site and this requires a Special Permission approval from the DCD Director, see Attachment B. The current proposal would not change this process or the criteria that must be met. If permission is granted for off -site mitigation the applicant must identify a site capable of providing an equivalent ecological benefit to the filled wetlands. The argument for carrying out the mitigation at a Mitigation Bank is that mitigation is completed in advance of impacts and generally results in improved hydrologic, water quality and habitat functions in a consolidated location. Studies of wetland mitigation banks have shown this to be true as long as the mitigation bank is maintained and monitored. The Springbrook mitigation bank established by the City of Renton and WSDOT was reviewed and approved by the State Department of Ecology, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Federal Highway Administration and underwent rigorous review for compliance with both State and Federal requirements for wetland and stream protection and restoration. This review process is required for the establishment of any mitigation bank. Staff recommends amending the SAO as identified in Attachment C to permit the DCD Director to establish a ratio of mitigation acreage to wetland bank credit for off -site mitigation proposed in wetland mitigation banks that have been approved by appropriate agencies. This would be a Type 2 decision, similar to most of the other discretionary approvals in the SAO. REQUESTED ACTION Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. NG Page 3 of 3 05/16/2007 9:50:00 PM Q:\2007 SAO Amendment \CAP Memo.doc Mitigation Treatment Acreage Ratios* Mitigation Credits ** Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit D Unit E Total Wetland Re- Establishment 17.79 1:1 0.05 0.12 9.27 - 8.35 17.79 Wetland Rehabilitation 52.14 3:1 6.64 10.39 0.35 -- -- 17.38 Wetland Enhancement - Type I 4.69 4:1 - - 1.17 - -- 1.17 Wetland Enhancement - Type II 2.63 5:1 - -- - 0.53 - 0.53 Forested Wetland Enhancement 25.22 5:1 - -- 4.65 0.40 - 5.05 Riparian Upland Enhancement 6.56 4:1 0.16 0.37 -- -- 1.11 1.64 Upland Habitat Enhancement 7.80 5:1 -- -- 1.56 - - 1.56 Buffer Enhancement 9.89 - - -- -- -- - -- Trail Zone 2.66 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Totals 129.37 -- 6.85 10.88 17.00 0.93 9.46 45.12 ** FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 4.0 BANK OPERATION 4.1 CREDIT DETERMINATION Credits are the "currency" of a mitigation bank. The value of credits that a mitigation bank generates equals its net ecological benefit. The 129.37 -acre Springbrook Bank includes 116.82 acres that qualify for bank credit. The remaining 12.55 non - credit acres have been designated for protection setback and the Trail Zone to minimize disturbances from adjacent roads, development, and the trail through Unit A. Units D and E each have an existing 20 -foot utility easement inside the parcel boundary that will not generate mitigation credit (see Figures 2 -4 and 2 -3). The 45.12 credits expected to be generated at Springbrook Bank represents the number of acres of impacts to Category II wetlands (Hruby 2004) for which the bank could be used as compensation (Table 4 -1). These mitigation credits will become available as performance standards and other measures are achieved (see Tables 3 -1 through 3 -4 and Table 4 -3). The precise number of credits actually generated by the Springbrook Bank cannot be determined until the project is constructed and the success of restoration and enhancement activities is assessed by the BOC. The final number of credits will be determined by the BOC and will be based on achievement of the performance standards. Table 4 -1. Credit Potential The ratio of acreage to credits is the number of credits established per acre of mitigation activity in first column. The number of mitigation credits that Springbrook Bank will generate for each mitigation treatment. Each credit can compensate for the loss of a typical acre of Category II wetland. 4.2 APPROVING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CREDIT RELEASE Springbrook Bank is expected to generate 45.12 credits that will be eligible for release as the associated performance standards are met and approved by the BOC (Tables 3 -1 through 3 -4), with the exception that no credits may be released until a BOC- approved Memorandum of Agreement and Instrument are signed by the Sponsors, Ecology, and the Corps, and until a BOC- approved conservation easement is placed on the property title Chapter 4 Bank Operation Attachment A LOCATION: City wide BACKGROUND Q:\CODEAMND\2007AmendPC.DOC City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared May 16, 2007 HEARING DATE: May 24, 2007 NOTIFICATION: Notice of Public Hearing published May 9, 2007. FILE NUMBER: L07 -024 Code Amendments REQUEST: Hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council about four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code concerning: 1) Limitation on single family expansions within non - conforming setbacks; 2) Retaining wall setback changes; 3) Administrative variance for single family lot size; and 4) Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010. STAFF: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for consideration: 1) Limitation on single family expansions within non - conforming setbacks; 2) Retaining wall setback changes; 3) Administrative variance for single family lot size; and 4) Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Staff presented these issues with various options to the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP) Committee on April 10, 2007. The Committee discussed each item and chose to forward them to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation. The COW recommendations from May 14 are reflected in the draft language proposed. Each proposed change is discussed below. Page 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS A. Limitation on Additions to Homes that Do Not meet Setbacks TMC 18.70.050 (6) states "single family structures in single or multiple family zone districts, which have legally non - conforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand along the existing building line(s) if the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the property line is not reduced." This provision has been used in ways that significantly increase the area of non - conformity and impact upon the neighboring property. Staff's proposal is as follows: 18.70.050 Nonconforming Structures Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption of this title that could not be built under the terms of this title by reason of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height, yards or other characteristics of the structure, it may be continued so long as the structure remains otherwise lawful subject to the following provisions: 6. Single - family structures in single- or multiple - family residential zone districts, which have legally nonconforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand the ground floor only along the existing building line(s) so long as the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the property line is not reduced and the area of new intrusion into the setback does not exceed 50% of the area of the current intrusion. B. Retaining Wall Setbacks There are several different standards for whether retaining walls can be located in required setbacks which leads to confusion and in some cases unusable yards. The Zoning Code defines yard and structure as: 18.06.945 Yard "Yard" means a required open space unoccupied and unobstructed by any structure or portion of a structure from 30 inches above the general ground level of the graded lot upward. 18.06.800 Structure "Structure" means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, but excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized. Not included are residential fences, retaining walls less than three feet in height, rockeries and similar improvements of minor character. The building code allows most rockeries and retaining walls up to four feet high without a permit, which many people assume is the trigger for meeting setbacks. Rockeries are rarely allowed to retain more than four feet of earth. While the intent may have been to prevent a neighbor from having to look at a tall retaining wall on the property line it sometimes has the effect of creating a yard that is unmaintained and unusable to the property owner because of the grade separation. These rules do not provide for the situations where a retaining wall is Q: \CODEAMND\2007AmendPC.DOC Page 2 perpendicular to a property line across two or more lots or alongside a driveway when the garage is built into the basement of a house on a hillside. Staff suggests that retaining walls and rockeries with up to 4 feet of exposed face be allowed in yards to match building code requirements. This could be increased in special circumstances if the property in question is on the lower side of the retaining wall, if the wall benefits the lots on both sides of the property line or if the wall is needed due to R -O -W improvements. 18.06.800 Structure "Structure" means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, but excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized. Not included are residential fences up to six feet in height, retaining walls or rockeries with up to four feet of exposed face and similar improvements of minor character. TMC ?? Retaining Wall Setback Waiver Retaining walls with an exposed height greater than four feet may be allowed in required front., side or rear yards under the following circumstances: 1. When the applicant's property is on the lower side of the retaining wall and it is not visible from adjacent properties or is screened by landscaping, or 2. When a wall built on a property line or perpendicular to it benefits the lots on both sides and the owners of both properties agree to jointly maintain the wall, or 3. When a wall in a front yard is required due to roadway expansion or improvements. or 4. When a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road that meets Fire Department slope requirements and they either have a decorative treatment or are screened with landscaping. C. Administrative Variance for Lot Size The minimum lot size in Low Density Residential, Tukwila's single family zone, is 6,500 sf. There are areas of the City that were platted prior to current zoning regulations with different lot patterns such as 3,000 sf lots. These substandard lots are no longer considered individual building sites since the passage of Ordinance 2097. This means that a property owner might have to aggregate five or more lots totaling 15,000 sf in order to create two building sites as opposed to the 13,000 sf required by code. Staff proposes to create an administrative variance to the DCD Director for reductions in lot size of up to 500sf per lot for up to two lots to streamline the process for lots that are just under the threshold for subdivision or where there is an existing house that prevents the lots from being divided equally. Requests for greater reductions would still require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Proposed criteria for this new type of variance include: TMC 18.50.140 Administrative Lot Area Variance in LDR A property owner in the LDR zone may apply for a reduction in lot size of up to 500 square feet per lot for up to two lots. This shall be processed as a Type 2 decision concurrent with the short plat or boundary line adjustment application and approved only if all of the following criteria would be met. Q:\CODEAMND\2007AmendPC.DOC Page 3 1) The current or past property owner has not reduced the area of the lot in question by BLA, short plat or sale of adjacent lots under common ownership after the effective date of Ord. 2097 (August 6, 2005). 2) The new lots would be able to meet all other development standards including setbacks, lot width, maximum building footprint and parking. 3) Lots that have received a reduction in size through the PRD process are not eligible for further reductions through this variance process. 4) The variance is compatible with and meets the spirit of the comprehensive plan and will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and the rights of the neighboring property owners. 5) The lot must not contain a multi - family structure or an accessory dwelling unit. 6) The variance permitted is the minimum variance necessary. 7) The variance is necessary to relieve a material hardship which cannot be relieved by any other means. 8) The granting of the variance will not cause a substantial detrimental effect to the public interest. D. Permit Processing Housekeeping There are a few decisions called out in the body of the Zoning Code that are not listed in the table at TMC 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications. In addition the proposed changes above, if adopted, would add a new decision to the code. For clarity all of the types of decisions should be listed along with the decision maker and appeal body (if applicable). Add to the Type 2 Decisions section: 18.52.020 Special Permission landscape approvals 18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080 Waiver of certain setback and landscape standards in the Commercial Redevelopment Area 18.50.130 Structures over public R -O -W 18.56.140 Variance from Parking Standards less than 10% 18.50.140 Administrative Lot Area Variance in LDR Add to the Type 4 Decisions section: 18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080 Waiver of certain setback and landscape standards in the Commercial Redevelopment Area REQUESTED ACTION Hold a public hearing on these proposed changes and make recommendations to the City Council. Q: \CODEAMND\2007AmendPC.DOC Page 4 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director HEARING DATE: May 24, 2007 NOTIFICATION: Notice of Public Hearing published May 9, 2007. FILE NUMBER: L07 -024 Code Amendments REQUEST: Hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council about the proposed amendments to the SEPA Code. LOCATION: City wide STAFF: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor ATTACHMENT: A. WAC 197 -11 -355 Optional DNS Process BACKGROUND The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that a standard checklist be filled out by a project proponent to identify the environmental impacts of certain actions. Actions include grading, dredging, paving, construction or demolition of buildings, and adoption or revision of most plans, policies or regulations by a government agency. The intent is to identify environmental impacts that would otherwise "fall through the cracks" and provide a mechanism for public review and mitigation. Jurisdictions have flexibility in setting the thresholds that trigger SEPA review up to the maximum level allowed by the State. If a project is exempt in one category but triggers SEPA in another then SEPA is required. For example a three lot short plat on a hillside would be exempt from SEPA review unless the cut and fill required exceeded 500 cubic yards. NG Q:\CODEAMND\SEPAChanges\PC_SEPA.DOC STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared May 16, 2007 Page I 05/16/2007 3:34:00 PM Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Type of Action Tukwila's Threshold Maximum Threshold CAP Proposed Thresholds Residential Construction 4 dwelling units 20 dwelling units No Change Commercial /Industrial Construction 4,000 sf and 20 parking spaces 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces Parking Lots 40 parking spaces 40 parking spaces No Change Landfills or Excavations 500 cubic yards 500 cubic yards No Change Jurisdictions can also take advantage of an optional SEPA process that allows them to identify projects where significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely and combine the comment period on that determination with the notice of application comment period for the underlying permit, see Attachment A. The CAP reviewed this proposal on April 10, 2007 and recommended approval of all changes except there was no consensus on raising the threshold for single family construction. At the COW meeting on May 14 the Council opted to send the proposal to the Planning Commission and ask for their input on the single family threshold. ANALYSIS Tukwila and other agencies with permitting authority have a comprehensive set of regulations to control negative impacts in the following areas that are subject to SEPA review: 1. Grading, filling, unstable soil and erosion (Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance, International Building Code, PW Standards) 2. Air emissions (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency) 3. Surface water (wetlands and watercourses), groundwater, and storm water (Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance, King County Surface Water Design Manual) 4. Vegetation and landscaping (Landscape Chapter of the Zoning Code, Tree Ordinance) 5. Animals, endangered species, wildlife habitat (ESA, Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance) 6. Energy and natural resources (Building and Mechanical Codes) 7. Environmental health, hazardous waste and noise (Tukwila Noise Ordinance, Hazardous Waste Regulations, Department of Ecology) 8. Land and shoreline use (Zoning Code, Shoreline Master Program) 9. Housing (IBC, Zoning Code, Design Review) 10. Aesthetics, design review (Design Review) NG Page 2 05/16/2007 3:34:00 PM Q : \CODEAMND \SEPAChanges\PC_SEPA. DOC 11. Light and glare (IMC, Zoning Code, Design Review) 12. Recreation (Parks Department, Zoning Code recreation space requirements) 13. Historic and cultural preservation (No listed structures in Tukwila, Archaeological and Paleontological preservation requirements) 14. Transportation, traffic and parking (Level of Service Standards, PW Concurrency Requirements, Transportation Impact Fees, Capital Improvement Program, Zoning Code Parking requirements) 15. Public services (Concurrency Requirements) 16. Utilities, sewer and water concurrency (Concurrency Requirements) Because these codes and standards are already in place we do not often have to rely on SEPA to impose mitigation conditions. Raising the threshold for number of new dwelling units to 9 would match the threshold for subdivision review. Raising the threshold for new buildings in commercial /industrial zones to 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces would streamline review of smaller projects. As an example the Claim Jumper restaurant is approximately 12,000 sf. Because SEPA triggers notice requirements some smaller projects that do not require other approvals such as design review would no longer require public notice if the threshold were changed. Short plats for 5 or more lots are required to provide public notice and raising the SEPA threshold would not change that. 18.104.090 Notice of Application - Procedure Notice of Application shall be provided as follows: 1. For all Type 2, 3, 4 and 5 decisions, and Type 1 decisions which require SEPA review, the Notice of Application shall be mailed by first class mail to the applicant and to departments and agencies with jurisdiction, except that a Notice of Application is not required in the case of a Code Interpretation pursuant to TMC 18.96.010 or a Sign Permit Denial pursuant to TMC Chapter 19.12. 2. For Type 1 decisions and Type 2 decisions which require SEPA review, the Notice of Application shall be provided by posting pursuant to TMC 18.104.110, provided that the Notice of Application for a Type 1 decision involving a single- family residence need not be posted but shall be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 3. For short plats of 5 through 9 lots and Type 3, 4 and 5 applications, the Notice of Application shall be posted pursuant to TMC 18.104.110 and mailed pursuant to TMC 18.104.120. Notice requirements for secure community transition facilities shall be in accordance with RCW 71.09.315 as amended. Very few development proposals require a full environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze impacts and develop mitigation measures. For the vast majority of development in Tukwila the City issues either a determination of non - significance (DNS) or a mitigated determination of non - significance (MDNS) after review of the SEPA checklist. The City is authorized under WAC 197 -11 -355 to make this determination early in the NG Page 3 05/16/2007 3:34:00 PM Q : \CODEAMND \SEPAChanges \PC_SEPA. DOC review process and combine the SEPA comment period with that of the underlying permit, saving about two weeks of processing time. PROPOSAL Raise the flexible thresholds for commercial and industrial new construction and possibly for residential, as shown on the table above. Take advantage of the optional DNS process that allows for concurrent SEPA and project comment periods, see Attachment A. 21.04.110 Categorical exemptions- Flexible thresholds A. The City establishes the following exempt levels for minor new construction based on local conditions: 1. For residential dwelling units in WAC 197 -11 -800 (1)(b)(i) up to four dwelling units. 2. For agricultural structures in WAC 197 -11 -800 (1) (b)(ii) up to 10,000 square feet. 3. For office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings in WAC 197 -11- 800(1) (b)(iii), up to 412,000 square feet, and up to 240 parking spaces. 4. For parking lots in WAC 197 -11- 800(1)(b)(iv), up to 40 parking spaces. 5. For landfills and excavations in WAC 197- 11 -800 (1)(b)(v), up to 500 cubic yards. B. The responsible official shall send copies of all adopted flexible thresholds to the Department of Ecology, headquarters office, Olympia, Washington. 21.04.080 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations - Adoption by reference The City adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference as supplemented in this chapter: 197 -11 -300 Purpose of this part 197 -11 -305 Categorical exemptions 197 -11 -310 Threshold determination required 197 -11 -315 Environmental checklist 197 -11 -330 Threshold determination process 197 -11 -335 Additional information 197 -11 -340 Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) 197 -11 -350 Mitigated DNS 197-11-355 Optional DNS process 197 -11 -360 Determination of Significance (DS) /initiation of scoping 197 -11 -390 Effect of threshold determination REQUESTED ACTION Hold a public hearing on these proposed changes and make a recommendation to the City Council. NG Page 4 05/16/2007 3:34:00 PM Q: \CODEAMND\SEPAChanges\PC_S EPA. DOC WAC 197 -11 -355: Optional DNS process. Page 1 of 1 197 -11 -350 « 197 -11 -355 » 197 -11 -360 WAC 197 -11 -355 Optional DNS process. (1) If a GMA county /city with an integrated project review process (RCW 36.70B.060) is lead agency for a proposal and has a reasonable basis for determining significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely, it may use a single integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and the likely threshold determination for the proposal. If this process is used, a second comment period will typically not be required when the DNS is issued (refer to subsection (4) of this section). (2) If the lead agency uses the optional process specified in subsection (1) of this section, the lead agency shall: (a) State on the first page of the notice of application that it expects to issue a DNS for the proposal, and that: (i) The optional DNS process is being used; (ii) This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal; (iii) The proposal may include mitigation measures under applicable codes, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether an EIS is prepared; and (iv) A copy of the subsequent threshold determination for the specific proposal may be obtained upon request (in addition, the lead agency may choose to maintain a general mailing list for threshold determination distribution). (b) List in the notice of application the conditions being considered to mitigate environmental impacts, if a mitigated DNS is expected; (c) Comply with the requirements for a notice of application and public notice in RCW 36.70B.110; and (d) Send the notice of application and environmental checklist to: (i) Agencies with jurisdiction, the department of ecology, affected tribes, and each local agency or political subdivision whose public services would be changed as a result of implementation of the proposal; and (ii) Anyone requesting a copy of the environmental checklist for the specific proposal (in addition, the lead agency may choose to maintain a general mailing list for checklist distribution). (3) If the lead agency indicates on the notice of application that a DNS is likely, an agency with jurisdiction may assume lead agency status during the comment period on the notice of application (WAC 197 -11 -948). (4) The responsible official shall consider timely comments on the notice of application and either: (a) Issue a DNS or mitigated DNS with no comment period using the procedures in subsection (5) of this section; (b) Issue a DNS or mitigated DNS with a comment period using the procedures in subsection (5) of this section, if the lead agency determines a comment period is necessary; (c) Issue a DS; or (d) Require additional information or studies prior to making a threshold determination. (5) If a DNS or mitigated DNS is issued under subsection (4)(a) of this section, the lead agency shall send a copy of the DNS or mitigated DNS to the department of ecology, agencies with jurisdiction, those who commented, and anyone requesting a copy. A copy of the environmental checklist need not be recirculated. [Statutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESHB 1724) and RCW 43.21C.110. 97 -21 -030 (Order 95 -16), § 197 -11 -355, filed 10/10/97, effective 11/10/97.] http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=197-11-355 Attachment A City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared December 5, 2007 HEARING DATE: December 13, 2007. The second hearing on November 8, 2007, was continued until December 13, 2007. The first hearing was held on June 28, 2007. NOTIFICATION: Notice of Public Hearing was published on November 29, 2007. FILE NUMBER: L07 -024 Code Amendments REQUEST: Hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council about the proposed townhouse amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. LOCATION: Proposed amendments will apply to all properties zoned MDR and HDR. STAFF: Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Table comparing setback requirements in neighboring jurisdictions. B. Proposed Code Amendments in Strikeout/Underline Format. ITEMS FINALIZED AT THE LAST MEETING: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed code amendments to allow townhouse type of development on June 28, 2007, and recommended that the proposed changes be forwarded to the City Council for consideration with the following changes: 1. Delete the proposed changes that allowed townhouse developments of up to 9 lots to go through administrative design review. Instead all townhouse developments shall be subject to design review by the Board of Architectural Review. 2. Fire lane access shall be provided on the subject property if possible and if there is an easement on an adjacent property for fire access it should be restricted for fire and emergency vehicles only. MD Page 1 of 6 Dec 5, 2007 Q: \Townhomes\PC staff report 12- 13- 07.doc Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Snvthrenter Rnvlevard_ Snits #100 • Tukwila_ Wachinotnn 0111RR • Phnna• 2n/I_471.3S,7n • Fay. 91M- d21.215AS 3. Revising the Multifamily Design Guidelines to address the townhouse building type. The second public hearing was held on November 8, 2007, to finalize the Townhouse Design Guidelines. All of the items listed above were incorporated in to staff's recommendations that were reviewed at the last meeting. ITEMS SUGGESTED FOR FURTHER REVIEW: Based on testimony received at the hearing, the Planning Commission asked staff to review the setback requirements of adjoining jurisdictions. Also, an item was included in the design guidelines to encourage sub -grade parking. Attachment A is a comparison of setback standards of the neighboring cities with the setbacks reviewed at the last meeting. After reviewing the comparison table staff is recommending not requiring a tiered side and rear setback for townhouses if the site is not adjacent to LDR. Staff's recommendation is to require ten feet side and rear yard setback in MDR zones for a three story building that is not adjacent to LDR; and in HDR zone increase the 10 feet side and rear yard setback to 20 feet for the fourth floor. These recommendations were reviewed by the City's Building Official and Fire Marshal. Any development proposal will have to meet all Building and Fire Codes. The ten foot requirement will give the developer's the flexibility to either sprinkler the building or increase the setback to 12 feet to meet the ladder access requirements. The shaded portion in the tables below highlights the changes recommended to the setbacks reviewed at the last meeting: SETBACKS: MDR zone: MD Q: \Townhomes\PC staff report 12- 13- 07.doc Page 2 of 6 Dec 5, 2007 Setbacks reviewed at the last meeting New recommended setbacks Front ls 15 15 r Floor 20 20 3` Floor 30 (20 feet for townhouses) 30 (20 feet for townhouses) 2nd Front 1 Floor 7.5 7.5 2nd Floor 10 10 3' Floor 15 (10 feet for townhouses) 15 (10 feet for townhouses) Side 1 Floor 10 10 2n Floor 20 20 (10 feet for townhouseslunless adjacent to LDR) 3` Floor 20 (30 if adjacent to LDR) 20 (30 if adjacent to LDR) 00 =fee( for townhouses unless: .:adjacent b LDR) Rear 1S'Floor 10 10 2 Floor 20 20'f10 feet for townhouses 'unles%s djacent to LDR) 3` Floor 20 (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) 20 (30 feet if adjacent to LDR)(1 feet for townhouses unless.adjacent toLDR 3. Revising the Multifamily Design Guidelines to address the townhouse building type. The second public hearing was held on November 8, 2007, to finalize the Townhouse Design Guidelines. All of the items listed above were incorporated in to staff's recommendations that were reviewed at the last meeting. ITEMS SUGGESTED FOR FURTHER REVIEW: Based on testimony received at the hearing, the Planning Commission asked staff to review the setback requirements of adjoining jurisdictions. Also, an item was included in the design guidelines to encourage sub -grade parking. Attachment A is a comparison of setback standards of the neighboring cities with the setbacks reviewed at the last meeting. After reviewing the comparison table staff is recommending not requiring a tiered side and rear setback for townhouses if the site is not adjacent to LDR. Staff's recommendation is to require ten feet side and rear yard setback in MDR zones for a three story building that is not adjacent to LDR; and in HDR zone increase the 10 feet side and rear yard setback to 20 feet for the fourth floor. These recommendations were reviewed by the City's Building Official and Fire Marshal. Any development proposal will have to meet all Building and Fire Codes. The ten foot requirement will give the developer's the flexibility to either sprinkler the building or increase the setback to 12 feet to meet the ladder access requirements. The shaded portion in the tables below highlights the changes recommended to the setbacks reviewed at the last meeting: SETBACKS: MDR zone: MD Q: \Townhomes\PC staff report 12- 13- 07.doc Page 2 of 6 Dec 5, 2007 HDR Zone ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT HAVE COME UP SINCE THE LAST MEETING: The townhouse definition covers attached units, but there has been interest to develop detached compact single family units in MDR zone. Staff is recommending adding a definition of detached zero lot line dwelling units and permitting these type of developments in MDR zone subject to design review approval and meeting the recreation space requirements of a townhouse. The zero lot line type of development pattern allows houses to be constructed immediately adjacent to one side lot line (no side yard setback), coupled with an easement on the adjacent lot for maintenance purposes. This helps preserve privacy and usable yard space, especially in small lot areas. MD Page 3 of 6 Dec 5, 2007 Q: \Townhomes\PC staff report 12- 13- 07.doc Setbacks reviewed at the last meeting New recommended setbacks Front 1 Floor 15 15 2nd Floor 20 20 3 Floor 30 (20 feet for townhouses) 30 (20 feet for townhouses) 4 Floor 45 (20 feet for townhouses) 45 (20 feet for townhouses) 2nd Front 1 Floor 7.5 7.5 2nd Floor 10 10 3 Floor 15 (10 feet for townhouses) 15 (10 feet for townhouses) 4 Floor 22.5 (10 feet for townhouses) 22.5 (10 feet for townhouses) Side 1 Floor 10 10 2nd Floor 20 20 (10`feet for townhouses unless rdjacentsto.LDRR 3r Floor 20 (30 if adjacent to LDR) 20 (30 if adjacent to LDR) (s10 feei for °.townhouses unless " adjacent iii,LDRj 4 Floor 30 (20 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) 30 (20 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) Rear 1s Floor 10 10 2nd Floor 20 20(10' feet for=to "unless adjcent tiiLDR} 3 Floor 20 (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) 20 (30 feet if adjacent to LDR)`(i10 feetforaownhouses uniess_adjacent to•'LDR) 4th Floor 30 (20 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) 30 (20 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) HDR Zone ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT HAVE COME UP SINCE THE LAST MEETING: The townhouse definition covers attached units, but there has been interest to develop detached compact single family units in MDR zone. Staff is recommending adding a definition of detached zero lot line dwelling units and permitting these type of developments in MDR zone subject to design review approval and meeting the recreation space requirements of a townhouse. The zero lot line type of development pattern allows houses to be constructed immediately adjacent to one side lot line (no side yard setback), coupled with an easement on the adjacent lot for maintenance purposes. This helps preserve privacy and usable yard space, especially in small lot areas. MD Page 3 of 6 Dec 5, 2007 Q: \Townhomes\PC staff report 12- 13- 07.doc Examples of some detached zero lot line type of developments: III ZERO LOT LINE The site plan for a small zero lot line development shows how staggered siting, fencing, and detached garages can help preserve privacy and produce an in. teresting arrangement. Attached zero lot line type of development (These would be considered as townhouses under the proposed code changes) ZERO LOT LINE MD Page 4 of 6 Dec 5, 2007 Q:\Tovmhomes\PC staff report 12- 13- 07.doc SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES (included are changes finalized at the last meetings, new setback recommendations and detached zero -lot line type of developments). Subdivision Code The recommended approach to the subdivision process is to follow Seattle's example in treating townhouse and cottage housing projects similarly to a binding site plan. This would apply lot size, lot width, setback and landscape standards to the original "parent" parcel rather than the "unit" lots that contain the individual townhomes. This would result in the same treatment adjacent to the neighboring properties while allowing a different ownership pattern. Other than that change, both the short plat and subdivision platting process, could follow the standard procedure with preliminary approval, infrastructure construction, final approval and then building permit. We would allow the building foundations to be constructed prior to final approval along with the rest of the site improvements so that the lot lines could be drawn accurately through the existing common walls. If the buildings are constructed after the plat sometimes field conditions require boundary line adjustments to meet the as built conditions. MDR/HDR Zoning Standards In addition to the technical changes needed to allow platting of townhouses and detached zero lot line lots the following modifications to the bulk and coverage requirements to allow for a more market driven development pattern and density closer to what is achievable for stacked apartments or condominiums are proposed: • Setbacks Setback requirements should be applied to the parent lot rather than the unit lots since their purpose is to protect neighboring properties. The front and second front setbacks would not increase for the third or fourth floors unless the adjacent property was zoned LDR. The side and rear setbacks would not increase for second and third floor but would increase only for fourth floor or if adjacent to LDR. This would still provide a buffer to the adjacent property while allowing for consistent floor plans for the townhouses. A new building separation standard would be adopted for townhouse buildings of 10' for 2 story buildings and 20' for 3 and 4 story buildings. • Modulation Because townhouse units are generally narrow the existing modulation requirements would pose a significant constraint on the design. In exchange for shorter allowable building lengths (80' in MDR and 125' in HDR) the 4 foot modulation requirements would not be increased for three and four story townhouse buildings. MD Page 5 of 6 Dec 5, 2007 Q: \Townhomes\PC staff report 12- 13- 07.doc • Development Coverage It is not possible to achieve zoned density with a typical townhouse product under the 50% development coverage limitation. Townhouses are typically twice as large as an average apartment usually with 2 to 3 bedrooms and a garage. The recommended 75% development coverage would be similar to the impervious surface limitations common in other jurisdictions. • Recreation Space Setback areas that are part of a private yard for an individual unit would be allowed to count toward the 400 sq. ft. per unit recreation space requirement as long as it measured at least 10' on all sides. Since the small private yards are generally fenced the height of opaque fences along street frontages should be limited to 4 feet, with lattice or other open material allowed up to 6 feet. RECOMMENDATION Private yard that includes side yard setback area The current requirement for at least 25% of the recreation space to be devoted to shared children's play areas would start with developments of ten or more lots. This would ensure that the play area is large enough to be usable and that there is a critical mass of owners to share the burden of maintenance and liability insurance. Design Review The existing Multi- Family Design Guidelines booklet has a number of sections that may not be applicable to townhouses, such as the common space guidelines, parking lot standards and building separation requirements. In addition it does not provide illustrations that reflect townhouse density or building types. The draft Townhouse Design Guidelines that specifically address the townhouse density and building types are attached for your review. Staff recommends modifying the Zoning Code, Subdivision Code and adopting new Townhouse Design Manual in order to allow for townhouses and detached zero lot line units. The Planning Commission recommendation will be sent to the City Council for final review. MD Page 6 of 6 Dec 5, 2007 Q:\Townhomes\PC staff report 12- 13- 07.doc Tukwila Renton SeaTac Burien Des Moines Olympia Seattle MDR HDR R-14 RM- UM UH Multi- RA-3600 R6 Low T Family RM-2400 -12 rise Setbacks zones RM 1 - 4 Front l Floor 15 15 10 5 20 10 10 20 20 5 (20 for garage) 2 Floor 20 20 3 Floor 30 30 4th Floor 45 2" Front 1 Floor 7.5 7.5 10 (18 for garage) 2 Floor 20 20 10 (20 for lots > 50 wide lots) 10 2 Floor 10 10 3 Floor 15 15 4 Floor 22.5 Side P Floor 10 10 5 (1() 3 (25 5 ,5 - 5 1Q - RA3600 10 when when 15 - RM2400 next to 15 -RM1800 , next to Single Single Family) Family) 3rd Floor 20 20 (30 if (30 if next to next to LDR) LDR. 4 Floor - 30 11 avg 6 min Rear 1St Floor 10 10 15 5 15 5 5 10- RA3600 20 25' or 20-RM2400/1800 15% of lot depth 2 Floor 20 20 3 Floor 20 20 (30 if (30 if next to next to LDR) LDR) 4 Floor - 30 This table compares the setbacks discussed at the last meeting with those in the neighboring cities. The new proposed setbacks are not shown in this table. ATTACHMENT 'A' 8.avg, 6 min 8 avg, 6 min . 9 avg, 6 min Proposed Zoning and Subdivision Code Changes 17.12.010 Scope Any land being divided into nine or fewer parcels, lots, unit lots, tracts or sites for the purpose of sale, lease, or gift, any one of which is less than 20 acres in size, shall meet the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 1833 §1(part), 1998) 17.12.070 Unit lot short plats A. Sites developed or proposed to be developed with townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, or zero -lot line units may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. Any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. B. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. C. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common play areas), and other similar features, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. D. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. E. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. Construction of townhouse dwelling foundations may commence prior to final short plat approval, provided: 1. The proposed short plat has received preliminary approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed to assure construction of required public improvements; 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor impair City enforcement of conditions of subdivision approval; 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued until final short plat approval is granted. 17.14.010 Scope Any land being divided into 10 or more parcels, lots, unit lots, tracts or sites, for the purpose of sale or gift, any one of which is less than 20 acres in size, or any land which has been divided under the short subdivision procedures within five years and is not eligible for further short platting pursuant to Section 17.12.010 shall conform to the procedures and requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 1833 §1 (part), 1998) Page 1 of 8 Attachment B 17.14.060 Unit lot subdivisions A. Sites developed or proposed to be developed with townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, or zero -lot line units may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. Any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. B. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. C. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common play areas), and other similar features, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. D. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. E. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. Construction of townhouse dwelling foundations may commence prior to final plat approval, provided: 1. The proposed plat has received preliminary approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed to assure construction of required public improvements; 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor impair City enforcement of conditions of subdivision approvals 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued until final plat approval is granted. 18.06.537 Lot, Parent "Lot, parent" means the initial lot from which unit lots are subdivided for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, zero -lot line units, or any combination of the above types of residential development. 18.06.542 Lot, Unit "Lot, unit" means one (1) of the individual lots created from the subdivision of a parent lot for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, zero -lot line units, or any combination of the above types of residential development. 18.06.768 Short Subdivision "Short subdivision" means the division of land into nine or less lots, unit lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions. 18.06.813 Subdivision Page 2 of 8 Lot area, minimum 8,000 sq. ft. (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Lot area per unit (multi- family) 3,000 sq. ft. Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Setbacks, minimum: Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front - 1st floor 15 feet • Front - 2nd floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Second front - 1st floor 7.5 feet • Second front - 2nd floor 10 feet • Second front - 3rd floor 15 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Sides - 1st floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Sides - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 1st floor 10 feet • Rear - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) Townhouse buildin l se , aration minimum • 1 and 2 story buildings 10 feet • 3 story buildings 20 feet Height, maximum 30 feet "Subdivision" means the division or redivision of land into ten or more lots, unit lots tracts, parcels, sites or divisions. 18.06.8XX Townhouse "Townhouse" means a form of ground- related housing in which individual dwelling units are attached along at least one (1) common wall to at least one (1) other dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit occupies space from the ground to the roof and has direct access to private open space. No portion of a unit may occupy space above or below another unit, except that townhouse units may be constructed over a common shared parking garage, provided the garage is underground. 18.06.8XX Detached Zero Lot Line units A development pattern of detached dwelling units constructed immediately adjacent to one side lot line (i.e. no side yard setback), coupled with an easement on the adjacent lot in order to maintain separation between structures. The easement will provide access rights for maintenance purposes, help preserve privacy and usable yard space. 18.12.070 Basic Development Standards Development within the Medium Density Residential District shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: MDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Page 3 of 8 Landscape requirements (minimum): See Landscape, Recreation, Recycling /Solid Waste Space requirements chapter for further requirements Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front(s) 15 feet • Sides 10 feet • Rear 10 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum (75% for townhouses) Recreation space 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. min.) Off - street parking: • Residential See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations. • Accessory dwelling unit See Accessory Use section of this chapter • Other uses See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations (Ord. 1976 §23, 2001; Ord. 1758 ,s l (part), 1995) 18.14.020 Permitted Uses A. The following uses are permitted outright within the High - Density Residential District, subject to compliance with all other applicable requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 1. Animal veterinary, including associated temporary indoor boarding; access to an arterial required. 2. Convalescent and nursing homes for not more than 12 patients. 3. Day care centers. 4. Manufactured/mobile home park, meeting the following requirements: a. the development site shall comprise not less than two contiguous acres; b. overall development density shall not exceed eight dwelling units per acre; c. vehicular access to individual dwelling units shall be from the interior of the park; and d. emergency access shall be subject to the approval of the Tukwila Fire Department. 5. Dwelling - One detached single - family dwelling per lot 6. Detached zero lot line units. 6.7 Dwelling — multi - family. 8. Dwelling — townhouse up to four attached units. 9 -7. Libraries, museums or art galleries (public). 108. Parks, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds (public) but not including amusement parks, golf courses, or commercial recreation. 119. Shelters. B. In Commercial Redevelopment Area 3 (see Figures 18 -9 or 18 -10), the uses and development standards of the adjacent commercial zone are permitted and shall apply, subject to the specific criteria and procedures defined in the BAR chapter of this code, TMC 18.60.060. (Ord. 1976 §24, 2001; Ord. 1865 §13. 1999:Ord. 1830 §2, 1998; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.14.070 Basic Development Standards Page 4 of 8 Lot area, minimum 9,600 sq. ft. (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Lot area per unit (multi - family, except senior citizen housing) 2,000 sq. ft. Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Setbacks, minimum: Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front - 1st floor 15 feet • Front - 2nd floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Front — 4th floor 45 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Second front - 1st floor 7.5 feet • Second front - 2nd floor 10 feet • Second front - 3rd floor 15 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Second front — 4th floor 22.5 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Sides - 1st floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Sides - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Sides — 4th floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 1st floor 10 feet • Rear - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear — 4th floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR Townhouse buildin . se . aration minimum • 1 and 2 story buildings 10 feet • 3 and 4 story buildings 20 feet Height, maximum 45 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum (except senior citizen housing, 75% for townhouses) Landscape requirements (minimum): See Landscape, Recreation, Recycling /Solid Waste Space requirements chapter for further requirements Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front(s) 15 feet • Sides 10 feet • Rear 10 feet Recreation space 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. min.) Recreation space, senior citizen housing 100 sq. ft. per dwelling unit Off -street parking: • Residential (except senior citizen housing) See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off -street Parking & Loading Regulations. Development within the High Density Residential District shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: HDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Page 5 of 8 For all buildings except as described below: MDR....50 ft HDR ....50 ft Maximum building length with bonus for modulating off -sets: For structures with a maximum building height of 2 stories or 25 ft., whichever is less, and having horizontal modulation or a minimum vertical change in roof profile of 4 feet at least every two units or 50 feet, whichever is less: For structures with a building height over 2 stories or 25 ft., whichever is less, with a horizontal and vertical modulation of 4 ft. or an 8 ft. modulation in either direction: For townhouse structures with horizontal modulation or a minimum MDR....100 ft HDR ....200 ft MDR....100 ft HDR ....200 ft MDR....80 ft vertical change in roof profile of 4 feet at least every two units or HDR ....125 ft 50 feet, whichever is less: • Accessory dwelling unit See Accessory Use section of this chapter • Other uses, including senior citizen housing See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations 18.50.070 Yard Regulations A. Fences, walls, poles, posts, and other customary yard accessories, ornaments, furniture may be permitted in any yard subject to height limitations and requirements limiting obstruction of visibility to the detriment of public safety. The height of opaque fences along street frontages is limited to 4 feet, with lattice or other open material allowed up to 6 feet. B. In the case of through lots, unless the prevailing front yard pattern on adjoining lots indicates otherwise, front yards shall be provided on all frontages. C. Where the front yard that would normally be required on a lot is not in keeping with the prevailing yard pattern, the DCD may waive the requirement for the normal front yard and substitute therefore a special yard requirement which shall not exceed the average of the yards provided on adjacent lots. D. In the case of corner lots, a front yard of the required depth shall be provided in accordance with the prevailing yard pattern, and a second front yard of half the depth required generally for front yards in the district shall be provided on the other frontage. E. In the case of corner lots with more than two frontages, the DCD shall determine the front yard requirements, subject to the following conditions: 1. At least one front yard shall be provided having the full depth required generally in the district; 2. The second front yard shall be the minimum set forth in the district; 3. In the case of through lots and corner lots, there will be no rear yards but only front and side yards; 4. In the case of through lots, side yards shall extend from the rear lines of front yards required. In the case of corner lots, yards remaining after full and halfdepth front yards have been established shall be considered side yards. (See Figure 18 - 4.) (Ord. 1758 ¢ 1(part), 199 5) 18.50.083 Maximum Building Length In the MDR and HDR zones, the maximum building length shall be as follows: Page 6 of 8 Modulation shall be required for every 2 units or 50 feet, whichever is less, as measured along the building's length. Grouping of offsets in maximum four unit modules may be permitted only with BAR approval (see Figure 18 - 5). (Ord. 17585' S] (part), 1995) 18.50.085 Maximum Percent Development Area Coverage In the MDR and HDR zones the maximum percent development area coverage shall be 50 %, except for senior citizen housing developments in HDR. If the senior citizen housing building is converted to regular apartments the 50% limit must be met. Townhouse developments are allowed up to a maximum of 75% development area coverage. (Ord. 1830 §28, 1998; . Ord. 1758 § 1995) 18.52.060 Recreation Space Requirements In all MDR and HDR zoning districts, any proposed multiple - family structure, complex or development shall provide on the premises and for the use of the occupants a minimum amount of recreation space according to the following provisions: 1. Required Area. a. For each proposed dwelling unit in the multiple - family development and detached zero lot line type of development, a minimum of 400 square feet (100 square feet for senior citizen housing) of recreation space shall be provided. Any multiple - family structure, complex or development shall provide a minimum of 1,000 square feet of total recreation space. b. Townhouse units shall provide at least 250 sf of the 400 sf of recreation space as private, ground level open space measuring not less than 10 feet in any dimension. c. The front, side and rear yard setback areas required by the applicable zoning district shall not qualify as recreation space unless portions are incorporated into private open space with a minimum dimension of 10 feet on all sides. 2. Indoor or Covered Space. a. No more than 50% of the required recreation space may be indoor or covered space in standard multi - family developments. Senior citizen housing must have at least 20% indoor or covered space. b. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of extensively improved indoor recreation space provided. Interior facility improvements would include a full range of weight machines, sauna, hot tub, large screen television and the like. 3. Uncovered Space. a. A minimum of 50% of the total required recreation space shall be open or uncovered, up to 100% of the total requirement may be in open or uncovered recreation space in standard multi - family developments. Senior citizen housing allows up to 80% of recreation space to be outdoors and has no minimum outdoor space requirement. b. Recreation space shall not exceed a 4% slope in any direction unless it is determined that the proposed space design clearly facilitates and encourages the anticipated use as endorsed by the Director. c. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum credit of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of outdoor pool and surrounding deck area. 4. General Requirements. Page 7 of 8 a. Multiple - family complexes (except senior citizen housing, detached zero lot line and townhouses with nine or fewer units) which provide dwelling units with two or more bedrooms shall provide adequate recreation space for children with at least one space for the 5- to -12- year old group. Such space shall be at least 25% but not more than 50% of the total recreation space required under TMC 18.52.060.1, and shall be designated, located and maintained in a safe condition. b. Adequate fencing, plant screening, or other buffer shall separate the recreation space from parking areas, driveways or public streets. c. The anticipated use of all required recreation areas shall be specified and designed to clearly accommodate that use. (Ord. 1872 ' 14(part). 1999) 18.56.065 Residential Parking Requirements A. Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit which contains up to three bedrooms. One additional off -street parking space shall be required for every two bedrooms in excess of three bedrooms in a dwelling unit (i.e., four and five bedroom dwelling units shall have three off -street parking spaces, six and seven bedroom homes shall have four spaces, and so on). B. Each unit in a townhouse development shall have an attached garage with parking for at least one vehicle or a parking space in an underground garage. l C. The Director shall have the discretion to waive the requirement to construct a portion of the off -street parking requirement if, based on a parking demand study, the property owner establishes that the dwelling will be used primarily to house residents who do not and will not drive due to a factor other than age. Such a study shall assure that ample parking is provided for residents who can drive, guests, caregivers and other persons who work at the residence. If such a waiver is granted, the property owner shall provide a site plan which demonstrates that, in the event of a change of use which eliminates the reason for the waiver, there is ample room on the site to provide the number of off -street parking spaces required by this Code. In the event that a change of use or type of occupant is proposed that would alter the potential number of drivers living or working at the dwelling, the application for change of use shall be conditioned on construction of any additional off -street parking spaces required to meet the standards of this Code. (Ord. 1976 §62. 20011 18.60.050 Design Review Criteria A. Generally. The BAR is authorized to request and rely upon any document, guideline, or other consideration it deems relevant or useful to satisfy the purpose and objectives of this chapter, specifically including but not limited to the following criteria. The applicant shall bear the full burden of proof that the proposed development plans satisfy all of the criteria. The BAR may modify a literal interpretation of the design review criteria if, in their judgment such modifications better implement the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. C. Multi Family, Hotel and Motel Design Review Criteria. In reviewing any multi- family, hotel or motel application the following criteria shall be used by the BAR in its decision making as well as the Multi- Family Design Manual or Townhouse Design Manual. Detached zero lot line type of developments shall be subject to Townhouse Design Manual. Page 8 of 8 .r HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: REQUEST: LOCATION: STAFF: BACKGROUND Cizj' of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared Nov 1, 2007 November 8, 2007. The first hearing was held on June 28, 2007. Notice of Public Hearing published on October 25, 2007. L07 -024 Code Amendments Hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council about the proposed townhouse amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Proposed amendments will apply to all properties zoned MDR and HDR. Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed Code Amendments in Strikeout/Underline Format. B. Draft Townhouse Design Guidelines On April 10, 2007, the Community Affairs and Parks Committee discussed if the Zoning and Subdivision Codes be changed to allow development of zero -lot line /fee simple townhouses on individual lots in MDR and HDR zones, and moved it to Committee of the Whole (COW) without a recommendation. They discussed a range of issues including the necessity for common children's play areas, concerns about blank walls and environmental impacts of dense development. The COW discussed the issue on May 14 and expressed concern about assuring adequate recreation and open space in future developments; the need for flexibility in offering a variety of housing options in the City; the assurance that privacy will be considered for adjoining single family homes that may be affected by tiered setback requirements; and the importance of a design review process that involves the public. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor MD Page 1 of 4 Nov 1, 2007 Q: \Townhomes\PC staff report.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed code amendments to allow townhouse type of development on June 28, 2007, and recommended that the proposed changes be forwarded to the City Council for consideration with the following changes: 1. Delete the proposed changes that allowed townhouse developments of up to 9 lots to go through administrative design review. Instead all townhouse developments shall be subject to design review by the Board of Architectural Review 2. Fire lane access shall be provided on the subject property if possible and if there is an easement on an adjacent property for fire access it should be restricted for fire and emergency vehicles only. 3. Revising the Multifamily Design Guidelines to address the townhouse building type. Since the public hearing staff has been working on finalizing the design guidelines. A draft copy of the Townhouse Design Guidelines is attached for your review. The second public hearing was scheduled to allow the Planning Commission to review the new Townhouse Design Guidelines. Further, the staff has received input from some developers who object to the proposed tiered setback requirements of 10 feet for the first floor and 20 feet for the second, third and fourth floor. Also, the proposed code amendments have been revised to take out the provision that townhouse developments of up to nine units will be reviewed administratively. The existing code requires all multifamily developments in MDR and HDR zones be subject to design review by the Board of Architectural Review, therefore no amendments are proposed to that section of the zoning code. Further, fire lane access issue is site specific and shall be reviewed as part of the BAR design review process for each specific proposal, therefore no code language changes are required at this time. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES Subdivision Code The recommended approach to the subdivision process is to follow Seattle's example in treating townhouse and cottage housing projects similarly to a binding site plan. This would apply lot size, lot width, setback and landscape standards to the original "parent" parcel rather than the "unit" lots that contain the individual townhomes. This would result in the same treatment adjacent to the neighboring properties while allowing a different ownership pattern. Other than that change, both the short plat and subdivision platting process, could follow the standard procedure with preliminary approval, infrastructure construction, final approval and then building permit. We would allow the building foundations to be constructed prior to final approval along with the rest of the site improvements so that the lot lines could be drawn accurately through the existing common walls. If the buildings MD Q:\Townhomes\PC staff report.doc Page 2 of 4 Nov 1, 2007 are constructed after the plat sometimes field conditions require boundary line adjustments to meet the as built conditions. MDR/HDR Zoning Standards In addition to the technical changes needed to allow platting of townhouse sized lots the following modifications to the bulk and coverage requirements to allow for a more market driven development pattern and density closer to what is achievable for stacked apartments or condominiums are proposed: • Setbacks Setback requirements should be applied to the parent lot rather than the unit lots since their purpose is to protect neighboring properties. The front, second front and side setbacks would not increase for the third or fourth floors unless the adjacent property was zoned LDR. This would still provide a buffer to the adjacent property while allowing for consistent floor plans for the townhouses. A new building separation standard would be adopted for townhouse buildings of 10' for 2 story buildings and 20' for 3 and 4 story buildings. • Modulation Because townhouse units are generally narrow the existing modulation requirements would pose a significant constraint on the design. In exchange for shorter allowable building lengths (80' in MDR and 125' in HDR) the 4 foot modulation requirements would not be increased for three and four story townhouse buildings. • Development Coverage It is not possible to achieve zoned density with a typical townhouse product under the 50% development coverage limitation. Townhouses are typically twice as large as an average apartment usually with 2 to 3 bedrooms and a garage. The recommended 75% development coverage would be similar to the impervious surface limitations common in other jurisdictions. • Recreation Space Setback areas that are part of a private yard for an individual unit would be allowed to count toward the 400 sq. ft. per unit recreation space requirement as long as it measured at least 10' on all sides. Since the small private yards are generally fenced the height of opaque fences along street frontages should be limited to 4 feet, with lattice or other open material allowed up to 6 feet. MD Page 3 of 4 Nov 1, 2007 Q: \Townhomes\PC staff report.doc 4. 4 , 4; e 1 4. 4 , RECOMMENDATION Private yard that includes side yard setback area The current requirement for at least 25% of the recreation space to be devoted to shared children's play areas would start with developments of ten or more lots. This would ensure that the play area is large enough to be usable and that there is a critical mass of owners to share the burden of maintenance and liability insurance. Design Review The existing Multi - Family Design Guidelines booklet has a number of sections that may not be applicable to townhouses, such as the common space guidelines, parking lot standards and building separation requirements. In addition it does not provide illustrations that reflect townhouse density or building types. The draft Townhouse Design Guidelines that specifically address the townhouse density and building types are attached for your review. Staff recommends modifying the Zoning Code, Subdivision Code and adopting new Townhouse Design Manual in order to allow for zero -lot line townhouses. The Planning Commission recommendation will be sent to the City Council for final review. MD Page 4 of 4 Nov 1, 2007 Q:\Townhomes\PC staff report.doc Proposed Zoning and Subdivision Code Changes 17.12.010 Scope Any land being divided into nine or fewer parcels, lots, unit lots, tracts or sites for the purpose of sale, lease, or gift, any one of which is less than 20 acres in size, shall meet the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 1833 Y 1(part)..1998) 17.12.070 Unit lot short plats A. Sites developed orproposed to be developed with townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, or zero -lot line duplexes may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. Any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. B. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structur[s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. C. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common play areas), and other similar features, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. D. Within theparent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. E. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. Construction of townhouse dwelling foundations may commence prior to final short plat approval, provided: 1. The proposed short plat has received preliminary approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed to assure construction of required public improvements; 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor impair City enforcement of conditions of subdivision approval; 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued until final short plat approval is granted. 17.14.010 Scope Any land being divided into 10 or more parcels, lots, unit lots, tracts or sites, for the purpose of sale or gift, any one of which is less than 20 acres in size, or any land which has been divided under the short subdivision procedures within five years and is not eligible for further short platting pursuant to Section 17.12.010 shall conform to the procedures and requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 1833 § (part). 1998) Page 1 of 8 Attachment A 17.14.060 Unit lot subdivisions A. Sites developed or proposed to be developed with townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, or zero -lot line duplexes may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. Any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. B. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. C. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common play areas), and other similar features, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. D. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. E. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. Construction of townhouse dwelling foundations may commence prior to final plat approval, provided: 1. The proposed plat has received preliminary approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed to assure construction of required public improvements; 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor impair City enforcement of conditions of subdivision approval; 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued until final plat approval is granted. 18.06.537 Lot, Parent "Lot, parent" means the initial lot from which unit lots are subdivided for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, zero -lot line duplexes, or any combination of the above types of residential development. 18.06.542 Lot, Unit "Lot, unit" means one (1) of the individual lots created from the subdivision of a parent lot for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, zero -lot line duplexes, or any combination of the above types of residential development. 18.06.768 Short Subdivision "Short subdivision" means the division of land into nine or less lots, unit lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions. Page 2 of 8 Lot area, minimum 8,000 sq. ft. (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Lot area per unit (multi - family) 3,000 sq. ft. Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Setbacks, minimum: Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front - 1st floor 15 feet • Front - 2nd floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Second front - 1st floor 7.5 feet • Second front - 2nd floor 10 feet • Second front - 3rd floor 15 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Sides - 1st floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd floor 20 feet • Sides - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 1st floor 10 feet • Rear - 2nd floor 20 feet • Rear - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) Townhouse building separation, minimum • 1 and 2 story buildings 10 feet • 3 and -4 story- bui-ldin s 20 feet Height, maximum 30 feet Landscape requirements (minimum): See Landscape, Recreation, Recycling /Solid Waste Space requirements chapter for further requirements Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front(s) 15 feet • Sides 10 feet • Rear 10 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum (75% for townhouses) 18.06.813 Subdivision "Subdivision" means the division or redivision of land into ten or more lots, unit lots tracts, parcels, sites or divisions. 18.06.8XX Townhouse "Townhouse" means a form of ground - related housing in which individual dwelling units are attached along at least one (1) common wall to at least one (1) other dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit occupies space from the ground to the roof and has direct access to private open space. No portion of a unit may occupy space above or below another unit, except that townhouse units may be constructed over a common shared parking garage, provided the garage is underground. 18.12.070 Basic Development Standards Development within the Medium Density Residential District shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: MDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Page 3 of 8 Recreation space 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. min.) Off - street parking: Lot area per unit (multi - family, except senior citizen housing) • Residential See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations. • Accessory dwelling unit See Accessory Use section of this chapter • Other uses See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations Lot area, minimum 9,600 sq. ft. (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Lot area per unit (multi - family, except senior citizen housing) 2,000 sq. ft. Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) (Ord. 1976 x`23, 2001: Ord. 175S J paii). 1095) 18.14.020 Permitted Uses A. The following uses are permitted outright within the High- Density Residential District, subject to compliance with all other applicable requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 1. Animal veterinary, including associated temporary indoor boarding; access to an arterial required. 2. Convalescent and nursing homes for not more than 12 patients. 3. Day care centers. 4. Manufactured/mobile home park, meeting the following requirements: a. the development site shall comprise not less than two contiguous acres; b. overall development density shall not exceed eight dwelling units per acre; c. vehicular access to individual dwelling units shall be from the interior of the park; and d. emergency access shall be subject to the approval of the Tukwila Fire Department. 5. Dwelling - One detached single - family dwelling per lot. 6. Dwelling — multi - family. 7. Dwelling — townhouse up to four attached units. P. Libraries, museums or art galleries (public). 98. Parks, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds (public) but not including amusement parks, golf courses, or commercial recreation. 109. Shelters. B. In Commercial Redevelopment Area 3 (see Figures 18 -9 or 18 -10), the uses and development standards of the adjacent commercial zone are permitted and shall apply, subject to the specific criteria and procedures defined in the BAR chapter of this code, TMC 18.60.060. (Ord. 1976 §24, 2001; Ord. 1865 §13, 1999; Ord. 1830 §2, 1 998; Ord. 1 758 § 1(part), 1995) 18.14.070 Basic Development Standards Development within the High Density Residential District shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: HDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Page 4 of 8 Setbacks, minimum: Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front - 1st floor 15 feet • Front - 2nd floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Front — 4th floor 45 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Second front - 1st floor 7.5 feet • Second front - 2nd floor 10 feet • Second front - 3rd floor 15 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Second front — 4th floor 22.5 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Sides - 1st floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd floor 20 feet • Sides - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) • Sides — 4th floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 1st floor 10 feet • Rear - 2nd floor 20 feet • Rear - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) • Rear — 4th floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) Townhouse building separation, minimum • 1 and 2 story buildings 10 feet • 3 and 4 story buildings 20 feet Height, maximum 45 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum (except senior citizen housing, 75% for townhouses) Landscape requirements (minimum): See Landscape, Recreation, Recycling /Solid Waste Space requirements chapter for further requirements Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front(s) 15 feet • Sides 10 feet • Rear 10 feet Recreation space 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. min.) Recreation space, senior citizen housing 100 sq. ft. per dwelling unit Off - street parking: • Residential (except senior citizen housing) See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations. • Accessory dwelling unit See Accessory Use section of this chapter • Other uses, including senior citizen housing See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations 18.50.070 Yard Regulations A. Fences, walls, poles, posts, and other customary yard accessories, ornaments, furniture may be permitted in any yard subject to height limitations and requirements limiting obstruction of visibility to the detriment of public safety. The height of opaque fences along street frontages is limited to 4 feet, with lattice or other open material allowed up to 6 feet. B. In the case of through lots, unless the prevailing front yard pattern on adjoining lots indicates otherwise, front yards shall be provided on all frontages. Page 5 of 8 For all buildings except as described below: MDR....50 ft HDR ....50 ft Maximum building length with bonus for modulating off For structures with a maximum building height of 2 stories or 25 ft., whichever is less, and having horizontal modulation or a minimum vertical change in roof profile of 4 feet at least every two units or 50 feet, whichever is less: For structures with a building height over 2 stories or 25 ft., whichever is less, with a horizontal and vertical modulation of 4 ft. or an 8 ft. modulation in either direction: For townhouse structures with horizontal modulation or a minimum MDR....100 ft HDR ....200 ft MDR....100 ft HDR ....200 ft MDR....80 ft vertical change in roof profile of 4 feet at least every two units or HDR ....125 ft 50 feet, whichever is less: C. Where the front yard that would normally be required on a lot is not in keeping with the prevailing yard pattern, the DCD may waive the requirement for the normal front yard and substitute therefor a special yard requirement which shall not exceed the average of the yards provided on adjacent lots. D. In the case of corner lots, a front yard of the required depth shall be provided in accordance with the prevailing yard pattern, and a second front yard of half the depth required generally for front yards in the district shall be provided on the other frontage. E. In the case of corner lots with more than two frontages, the DCD shall determine the front yard requirements, subject to the following conditions: 1. At least one front yard shall be provided having the full depth required generally in the district; 2. The second front yard shall be the minimum set forth in the district; 3. In the case of through lots and corner lots, there will be no rear yards but only front and side yards; 4. In the case of through lots, side yards shall extend from the rear lines of front yards required. In the case of corner lots, yards remaining after full and halfdepth front yards have been established shall be considered side yards. (See Figure 18 - 4.) (Ord. 1758 § 1 (part ), 1995) 18.50.083 Maximum Building Length In the MDR and HDR zones, the maximum building length shall be as follows: Modulation shall be required for every 2 units or 50 feet, whichever is less, as measured along the building's length. Grouping of offsets in maximum four unit modules may be permitted only with BAR approval (see Figure 18 - 5). (Ord. 1758 § .1(part), 1995) 18.50.085 Maximum Percent Development Area Coverage In the MDR and HDR zones the maximum percent development area coverage shall be 50 %, except for senior citizen housing developments in HDR. If the senior citizen housing teilding is converted to regular apartments the 50% limit must be met. Townhouse developments are allowed up to a maximum of 75% development area coverage. (Ord. 1 830 ��' 3 1998; ()rd. 175< .1 (part), _1995) Page 6 of 8 18.52.060 Recreation Space Requirements In all MDR and HDR zoning districts, any proposed multiple - family structure, complex or development shall provide on the premises and for the use of the occupants a minimum amount of recreation space according to the following provisions: 1. Required Area. a. For each proposed dwelling unit in the multiple - family development, a minimum of 400 square feet (100 square feet for senior citizen housing) of recreation space shall be provided. Any multiple - family structure, complex or development shall provide a minimum of 1,000 square feet of total recreation space. b. Townhouse units shall provide at least 250 sf of the 400 sf of recreation space as private, ground level open space measuring not less than 10 feet in any dimension. 1} c. The front, side and rear yard setback areas required by the applicable zoning district shall not qualify as recreation space unless portions are incorporated into private open space with a minimum dimension of 10 feet on all sides. 2. Indoor or Covered Space. a. No more than 50% of the required recreation space may be indoor or covered space in standard multi - family developments. Senior citizen housing must have at least 20% indoor or covered space. b. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of extensively improved indoor recreation space provided. Interior facility improvements would include a full range of weight machines, sauna, hot tub, large screen television and the like. 3. Uncovered Space. a. A minimum of 50% of the total required recreation space shall be open or uncovered, up to 100% of the total requirement may be in open or uncovered recreation space in standard multi - family developments. Senior citizen housing allows up to 80% of recreation space to be outdoors and has no minimum outdoor space requirement. b. Recreation space shall not exceed a 4% slope in any direction unless it is determined that the proposed space design clearly facilitates and encourages the anticipated use as endorsed by the Director. c. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum credit of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of outdoor pool and surrounding deck area. 4. General Requirements. a. Multiple - family complexes (except senior citizen housing and townhouses with nine or fewer units) which provide dwelling units with two or more bedrooms shall provide adequate recreation space for children with at least one space for the 5- to -12- year old group. Such space shall be at least 25% but not more than 50% of the total recreation space required under TMC 18.52.060.1, and shall be designated, located and maintained in a safe condition. b. Adequate fencing, plant screening, or other buffer shall separate the recreation space from parking areas, driveways or public streets. c. The anticipated use of all required recreation areas shall be specified and designed to clearly accommodate that use. Ord. 1872 , 14(prrrt), 1999) Page 7 of 8 18.56.065 Residential Parking Requirements A. Two off - street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit which contains up to three bedrooms. One additional off - street parking space shall be required for every two bedrooms in excess of three bedrooms in a dwelling unit (i.e., four and five bedroom dwelling units shall have three off - street parking spaces, six and seven bedroom homes shall have four spaces, and so on). B. Each unit in a townhouse development shall have an attached garage with parking for at least one vehicle or a parking space in an underground garage. 13,. C. The Director shall have the discretion to waive the requirement to construct a portion of the off - street parking requirement if, based on a parking demand study, the property owner establishes that the dwelling will be used primarily to house residents who do not and will not drive due to a factor other than age. Such a study shall assure that ample parking is provided for residents who can drive, guests, caregivers and other persons who work at the residence. If such a waiver is granted, the property owner shall provide a site plan which demonstrates that, in the event of a change of use which eliminates the reason for the waiver, there is ample room on the site to provide the number of off - street parking spaces required by this Code. In the event that a change of use or type of occupant is proposed that would alter the potential number of drivers living or working at the dwelling, the application for change of use shall be conditioned on construction of any additional off - street parking spaces required to meet the standards of this Code. (Ord. 1976 §62. 200.1) 18.60.050 Design Review Criteria A. Generally. The BAR is authorized to request and rely upon any document, guideline, or other consideration it deems relevant or useful to satisfy the purpose and objectives of this chapter, specifically including but not limited to the following criteria. The applicant shall bear the full burden of proof that the proposed development plans satisfy all of the criteria. The BAR may modify a literal interpretation of the design review criteria if, in their judgment such modifications better implement the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. C. Multi - Family, Hotel and Motel Design Review Criteria. In reviewing any multi- family, hotel or motel application the following criteria shall be used by the BAR in its decision making as well as the Multi - Family Design Manual or Townhouse Design Manual. Page 8 of 8 I. SITE PLANNING TOWNHOUSE DESIGN GUIDELINES Streetscape - The transition from public to private spaces A. The transition from a pedestrian oriented streetscape to multi -story buildings should emphasize pedestrian scale architectural elements such as porches, plantings of varying heights, and use pedestrian oriented entries, courts, and lighting. It is possible to make the transition to the site, building and individual unit in many different physical ways. For example, a sidewalk could lead through a gate to a private yard and then to a porch before reaching the front door of the townhouse. The most successful solution will consist of a combination of the above suggested symbolic definers or other comparable mechanisms. Special pavers and may sign. Fig. 1: Project entry provides an immediate sense of high quality design. B. Provide a clearly defined building or courtyard entry from the primary street. 1. Use distinctive architectural elements and materials to indicate the entry such as a change in paving material, low wall, steps, trellis, or arbor. Q: \Townhomes\M FamilyDesGuide.doc -1- Nov 1, 2007 Attachment B Natural Environment — Retain natural site amenities C. Incorporate existing healthy and attractive vegetation into project design by locating buildings to maximize significant tree retention on slopes, retain tree stands, and minimize disturbance of sensitive areas. Retaining large stature trees and tree stands on site very significantly improves the integration of new developments into Tukwila's mature neighborhoods. 2. Define the transition space from the sidewalk to the entry with a terrace, plaza, or landscaped area. 3. Consider turning the end unit (or pair of units) to face the public street, see Figure 20. Fig. 2: Site buildings and roads to retain mature trees. D. Landform grading should be used when feasible to reflect the natural topography and retain mature trees. Q: 1Townhomes\MFamilyDesGu ide.doc - 2 - Nov 1, 2007 Building 1 Building 1 STREET t Building 1 Bui l Conventional Site Planning Fig. 3: Comparison of conventional and landform site grading. Circulation — Pedestrian Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc Landforrn Site Planning E. Site coverage on slopes should be minimized to reduce visual impact. Site coverage limitations are not as significant on flat sites where lower buildings may be preferable to maximize architectural harmony with nearby structures and the streetscape. F. Site design should be integrated with the neighborhood. Project design integration should include coordination of circulation, landscaping, recreation spaces, and building location with the surrounding area. A visual distinction using landform, landscaping, or materials may separate a project from the general neighborhood. However, high "fortress" walls should be avoided and buildings should not turn their backs to the street. G. A comprehensive system of pedestrian sidewalks should link all building/unit entries, parking lots, recreation areas and the project entries with the area -wide sidewalk system. H. Sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet wide between public roadway and the junction where pedestrian traffic begins to disperse. This would allow one pedestrian to pass another and remain on the sidewalk. A minimum four foot wide sidewalk may then be acceptable. - 3 - Nov I, 2007 I. Sidewalk crossings of on -site roadways should be distinguished by a different material and slightly raised to prevent runoff from flowing across them. Contrasting inataial marks pedestrian crossings Fig. 4: Key sidewalk intersections and segments are marked with contrasting pavers. J. Buildings should be separated at least 8 feet from driveways and parking spaces where facing windowed walls (but not the entry) of ground units and have a minimum 13 foot separation when facing the entry of ground units. K. Separate buildings from common walkways by at least 8 feet in the structure's front and rear, and a minimum 4 feet on its side. L. Separation guidelines do not apply to incidental structures such as trellises, 18 inch roof eaves, chimneys, covered walks, and pedestrian oriented amenities. Circulation — Vehicular M. Design the on -site vehicle circulation system as follows: • A maximum of two vehicle access points, depending on parcel characteristics and difficulty of access, to reduce traffic impacts and the site area devoted to roads instead of architecture and landscape /recreation space, • Create very low volume cul -de -sacs to allow multiple use as street oriented social/recreation areas, and • Stress shared driveways between adjacent developments. Q:1Townhomes\M FamilyDesGuide.doc Building entry area - 4 - Nov 1, 2007 Parking N. Locate parking to minimize conflicts between autos and pedestrians. Driveways should avoid crossing pedestrian walkways and paths from residence to children's play area. In large parking lots, provide pedestrian walkways to allowing people to move safely. Additional space should be provided where cars overhang curbs. 0. Separate driveway parking areas with landscape islands to create an individual unit entry and reduce the appearance of large areas of paving. Fig. 5: Separation of driveways with landscape islands. P. Provide the majority of the required parking spaces in attached garages (tandem parking allowed), underground parking, and underbuilding parking when grades permit at least partial screening. Q. Minimize the prominence of surface parking by using architecture and landscaping to break up or screen parking areas, moving parking to the side or rear, and breaking up large parking areas into smaller ones. Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 5 - Nov 1, 2007 Solar Orientation Q:1To vin homes \M FamilyDesGuide.doc Fig. 6: Parking located so that it is screened by buildings. R. Supplemental parking areas should be located within 200 feet of the farthest dwelling unit served for the convenience of residents. S. The optimum design for a parking area is not necessarily the one which parks the maximum number of vehicles, but the one that also provides ample stall and aisle widths, pedestrian walks, adequate turning radii, reasonable grades, efficient movement of traffic, pleasant appearance, and convenient location. T. Four to six space parking lots are pedestrian and human in character, while over twelve cars become car dominated. The critical number seems to be ten. This marks the breaking point between a human lot and a sea of cars. Small lots can be accomplished by breaking large parking areas into sections that serve no more than 10 to 12 cars. Landscape islands and areas should be located to protect cars as well as to break up seas of asphalt. U. To maximize the warming effect of solar radiation in winter months and maximize shade in the summer months: 1. Utilize deciduous trees for summer shade and winter sun 2. Orient active living spaces to the south. 3. Design building overhangs to shield the high summer sun and expose the area to the lower winter sun. - 6 - Nov 1, 2007 Crime Prevention V. Employ the Concept of Defensible Space to reduce opportunities for crime. "Defensible space" is a term used to describe a series of physical design characteristics that maximizes resident control of behavior -- particularly crime. A residential development designed under defensible space guidelines clearly defines all areas as either public, semi - private or private. In so doing, it determines who has the right to be in each space, and allows residents to be confident in responding to any questionable activity or persons within their complex. Residents are thus encouraged to extend their private realms, establish their zone of influence which inevitably results in a heightened sense of responsibility towards the care and maintenance of these outdoor areas. W. The following series of techniques can be used to create defensible space and consequently reduce crime. They are summarized in: • Defining zones of privacy (public, semi - private, private) with real or symbolic barriers. This allows residents to identify "strangers ". • Establishing perceived zones of influence (allowing residents to extend their private realms). • Providing surveillance opportunities. Additional design considerations include the following: • Orient windows so that areas vulnerable to crime can be easily surveyed by residents. • Locate mailboxes, garbage collection enclosures and common play areas in such a way that they are easily observed by others. Mailboxes should not be located in dark alcoves out of sight • Establish a system for identifying the location of each residential unit and common facilities at the project entry. • Lighting. More light is not necessarily indicative of better and safer lighting. Lighting levels should be carefully selected and oriented so that areas vulnerable to crime are accented. Provide lighting in areas of heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in areas which are dangerous if unlit, such as stairs and ramps, intersections or where abrupt changes in grade occur. Areas that have high crime potential should be well lighted so that people traveling through them at night may feel secure. • Locate plant materials such as high shrubs so that surveillance of semi - public and semi- private areas is not blocked. This will provide the opportunity for crime. • Use visually open fencing materials such as wrought iron bars or wooden pickets to define space between the street and building. X. Sticker shrubs may discourage crime activities. Low shrubs and umbrella trees (where the canopy is maintained above 5 feet from the ground) will allow surveillance opportunities, hence reducing the potential for criminal behavior. Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 7 - Nov 1, 2007 II. BUILDING DESIGN Neighborhood Compatibility A. Minimize the appearance of building scale differences between proposed townhouses and existing neighborhood residential units that conform to current zoning. Portions of multi - family developments adjoining areas zoned for single family should maintain a scale, facade and orientation similar to single family uses for compatibility with existing structures. A project site plan and cross - sections should show the footprint of all adjacent structures within 100 feet of the property line to help evaluate compatibility. Fig. 7: Incorporation of elements from neighboring structures into townhouse design. B. Reflect the architectural character of neighboring residences (within 300' on the same street) where it provides a positive example through use of related building features including scale /mass, height, the proportions of entries, windows and other openings (fenestration), color, materials, and shapes. 1. Step the roof on the building perimeter segments to transition between a proposed taller building and an existing residential structure. 2. Replicate or approximate roof forms and pitch found on existing residential structures in the neighborhood. 3. Use window patterns and proportions similar to those on existing residential structures in the neighborhood. 4. Use building facade materials similar to those used on existing residential buildings in the neighborhood. 5. Maintain a consistent relationship to the street (i.e., building setbacks and entryways) as existing buildings. Q: \ \TownhomesN FamilyDesGuide.doc - 8 - Nov 1, 2007 Offsets, changes in materials, and other fine detailing are used to provide architectural interest. - X -...--- _,,,,, 7-:.-=•-...•••-_ _ _ ..- ...--" .„.. ..--- ........- ,. , ..... . ...• _ .. .0" ...- ......... ..,-,''''' . ........,±,', QATownhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc v.-- Pitched roofs, building trurduliutO n and \ intimate maws introduce a single family \ scale w this dense building A trellised entry provides structural transition from pedestrian environment w \ building mail and helps scPuraic public \ from saniprivate project space& ■ ::-;ASkiet .. Fig. 8: Detailing and modulation are used to reduce the scale of the building. Building Entrances C. Avoid the use of exterior stairways to second stories that are visible from the street. Do this: -9- Nov 1, 2007 Site Plan: Not this: ( Q: 1Townhomes\MFami I yDesGuide. doc - 10 - Nov 1, 2007 Fig. 9: Relationship of entry to street level. D. Townhouse units shall have an individual entrance, with entrance vestibules, canopies or porches to give identity to each unit and provide weather protection. The main entrance to units adjacent to a public street shall be accessed from and face the street. Building Elevations Fig. 10 : Individual entry porch. E. Attached townhouses shall read as a unified building mass, maintaining a common architectural language across the entire length of units. This mass shall be varied by changes in unit orientation, color /material variations, shifts in roof profile, and variation at corner units. Windows, bays, balconies, and other articulation could also be used to express the individuality of each unit. Q: \Townhomes\M FamilyDesGu ide.doc - 11 - Nov 1, 2007 F. Each building shall incorporate treatments that "complete" the end and corner units, including: 1. an extended base or ground floor units 2. a protrusion, porch or bay that wraps the corner, or 3. an embedded corner tower Windows Q:\Townhomes1MFamilyDesGuide.doc Fig. 11: Expressing individual units through modulation and roof forms. G. A 3 -story blank wall, even if at the narrow end of a building, does not reflect acceptable design quality. Use architectural relief and fine detailing to break up monotonous surfaces. H. Avoid applied ornamentation which is not related to building structure or architectural design. This would include arbitrary, inconsistent forms and decoration; uninterrupted floating horizontal elements; and large blank surfaces. I. Provide relief, detail, and visual rhythm on the facade with well - proportioned windows. 1. Use window patterns, proportions, and orientation consistent with neighboring residences. 2. Use multiple -pane windows. 3. Provide windows that are designed to create shadows (either deeply recessed or protruding). 4. Use visually significant window elements (i.e. frame dimensions, lintels, casings, sills, and trim. 5. Locate windows so that the occupants from one residence cannot look directly into an adjacent residence. - 12 - Nov 1, 2007 Roof line Fig. 12: Window form examples. Fig. 13: Roof form variation. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 13 - J. Vary the roofline along the building length to reflect individual units. This can be achieved using: - separate roof forms - a combination of roof types, such as shed, gabled and hipped roofs) - gables and dormers K. Pitched and continuous sloping roof forms are encouraged. Where flat roofs are used, they should be detailed with parapets or roof overhangs, and detailed with brackets, corbels or other decorative supports. Nov 1, 2007 Building Massing L. More prominent sites and buildings require a higher level of design quality. This would include projects which are located near hill tops or intersections, or which include large visible building masses. M. Use building and roof modulation and articulation to reduce the appearance of large building masses. 1. Modulate the building facade with features such as porches, balconies, building wall relief, and bay windows. 2. Provide roof elements such as gables, eyebrow roof forms or dormers. 3. Incorporate prominent cornice, soffit, or fascia details that emphasize the top of the building. 4. Provide prominent roof overhangs. 5. Articulate the roof with rafter tails and brackets. Fig. 14: Differentiation of individual units through color, material and roof forms. Material and Colors N. Construct building exteriors of durable and maintainable materials that are attractive even when viewed up close. Use building materials that have texture, pattern, or lend themselves to a high quality of detailing. Appropriate materials are horizontal lap siding, shingles, brick, stone, stucco, ceramic or terra cotta tile. 0. Use a variety of complementary colors on building exteriors. Reserve brightly saturated colors for accent or trim features. Garage Design P. Design garages and carports so that they do not dominate the dwelling's facade. 1. Locate garages and carports behind residences, stepped back from the building's street facade, or provide a side entry (perpendicular to the street). 2. Design driveways to be as narrow as possible and/or shared where possible to Q:1Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide. doc - 14 - Nov 1, 2007 minimize impervious surface and to minimize disruption of the sidewalk and planting strip by curb cuts. 3. Incorporate windows into garage sidewalls whenever they face the street so that they appear to contain habitable space. 4. Incorporate garage door elements which reduce the apparent size of the doors, such as panels and windows. 5. Use materials and colors that match the residence. Fig. 15: Side entry garage with windows. III. LANDSCAPE /SITE TREATMENT Landscape Design A. Plants can be used to curtail erosion, to soften the built environment, define or emphasize open space, give privacy, block wind and lessen the effects of solar radiation. B. Although the landscape plan should reflect plants at maturity, landscaping should be considered as a design element harmonizing site plans and building design only to the extent of its effect in five years. This could mean using significantly larger initial plant stock for those project designs which rely heavily upon landscaping to provide relief for building and site design or screen the project. C. Select and site landscape materials to produce a hardy and drought- resistant landscape area consistent with project design. Selection should include consideration of soil type and depth, spacing, exposure to sun and wind, slope and contours of the site, building walls and overhangs, and compatibility of new plant material with existing vegetation to be preserved on the site. Q: \Townhomes\M FamilyDesGui de.doc - 15 - Nov 1, 2007 D. Install all plant materials to current nursery industry standards. Landscape plant material should be properly guyed and staked to current industry standards. Planting of trees in compacted soils is prohibited unless minimum 12 inch gravel drain sumps are installed under each tree to a minimum of 36 inch depth, or the subgrade soil beyond the planting pit is rototilled to a 9 inch depth to the drip line or edge of planter, whichever is less. E. Plant shrubs used to define spaces or separate environments as a staggered double row whenever possible. This provides the significant depth especially necessary to separate environments such as parking areas from grassed fields and building entries. F. Limit shrub beds to a maximum of two feet wide per typical row of nursery stock plants, in order to minimize barked area and maximize live ground cover. A typical five foot wide barked planting bed for a single row of shrubs is not acceptable. Protection of Existing Trees G. The survival and general health of a tree depends as much on the condition of its root system as it does on the factors influencing the above - ground portion. This vital root system extends out to, and sometimes beyond the tree's drip line (the outermost reach of branches). Any significant disturbance to the root area, such as high surface compaction, root severing, over - watering and/or removal of organic material in which the tree has composted over several years, will almost certainly kill the tree. Tree removal and replacement would be required after a few seasons of progressive deterioration. H. Protect significant trees during construction with a chain -link fence or plastic vinyl construction fence at the drip line. Install the protection fence prior to issuance of grading permit. Removal or destruction of fencing should be cause for a Stop Work Order until reviewed by City staff. DRIPLINE FENCE LINE Fig. 16: Tree protected with a chain link fence at the drip line during construction. Q :1Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 16 - Nov 1, 2007 Design for Screening and Separation I. Full privacy requires an opaque fence or evergreen barrier at least six feet high or above eye level, depending on the angle of view. Noise reduction requires a dense fence (i.e., concrete /masonry) wall or berm in addition to plantings. J. Area separation requires a continuous physical barrier not less than three feet high. A greater degree of separation would require a higher opaque barrier. A separation planting strip could be deciduous or evergreen. K. Provide a privacy fence along side and rear yards if adjoining single family zoning. This should be 6 feet high sight- obscuring wood (or equivalent) fence with exterior materials and colors consistent with building architecture. Outdoor Space Design L. Outdoor space tends to be unusable when it is simply the "leftovers" after buildings are placed on the land. Outdoor spaces should have a definite functional shape, be internally designed to fulfill that function, and be functionally associated with a specific unit or unit group (see "Defensible Space" in Site Plan guidelines). M. Complexes with 10 or more units must provide an on -site recreation space for children with at least one area designed for children aged 5 -12, see TMC 18.52.060. This area should be characterized by interactive group equipment which tests skills. The Parks and Recreation Director should be consulted in the review of acceptable design proposals. N. The child play area should reflect the design elements below: 1. Visually accessible to casual surveillance by passersby and residents. This is a key element in facility safety and generally requires a central location. 2. Provide separation of play areas from general passersby for security. 3. Easy safe access from residence to play area(s) 4. Hard surface areas for wheeled toys and tricycles. 5. Equipment with zones to satisfy the specific sensory and skill needs up to age 12. 6. Use water and sand if limited to two materials. These provide more possibilities for play and fun than all asphalt deserts combined. The ability to move over, under, around or through something.affords a child control. He can change his relationship to it. 7. A child should be able to control his level of involvement with others. Make small sheltered areas for solitary play, larger spaces .for group play. 8. An adjacent sitting area for monitoring the children. Q: \Townhomes\MFami lyDesGu ide.doc - 17 - Nov 1, 2007 Lighting Fig. 18: Parking lot lighting. Fig. 17: A recreation space for the 5 -12 year old group which facilitates group interaction and skill testing. 0. Linkages with existing public trail and park facilities should be made where possible, either through immediate construction or agreement to jointly participate in the coordinated provision of such a linkage at a later date. IV. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES /STREET FURNITURE A. Reflect project architectural design considerations in all exterior lighting (i.e., distribution, intensity, and pattern). B. Maximum parking area light standard height is 20 feet or the height of the building; whichever is less. C. Maximum walkway and grounds lighting is 15 feet. Light fixture height is limited to enhance a sense of scale and enclosure for common areas at night. Q `,Townhomes \MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 18 - Nov 1, 2007 D. Provide all lighting standards with glare cut -off features to avoid off -site spill -over. E. Place fixtures so that light patterns overlap at a height of 7 feet which is sufficiently high to vertically illuminate a person's body. F. At hazardous locations, such as changes of grade, use lower level supplemental lighting or additional overhead units. Where low -level lighting (below 5 feet) is used, fixtures should be placed in such a way that they do not produce glare. Most eye levels occur between 3 feet 8 inches for wheelchair users and 6 feet for standing adults. G. Where walkway lighting is provided primarily by low fixtures provide sufficient peripheral lighting to illuminate the immediate surroundings. Peripheral lighting contributes to a feeling of security in an individual because he can see into his surroundings to determine whether or not passage through an area is safe. Such an area should be lighted so that the object or person may be seen directly or in silhouette. Fencing, Walls, and Screening H. All fencing, walls, and screening should reflect building architecture and be harmonious with adjacent project designs. This includes consideration of proportion, color, texture, and materials. Design perimeter fencing to be attractive from both sides. Service Areas I. Screen all exterior maintenance equipment, including HVAC equipment, electrical equipment, storage tanks, satellite dishes, and garbage dumpsters from off -site and on -site common area view in an architecturally integrated manner. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 19 - Fig. 19: Dumpsters are sited and screened to minimize prominence. Nov 1, 2007 J. Several small dumpsters adjacent to buildings such as garages are preferable to a single large free standing site. Dumpsters should have solid architectural wall screening only to the container height to minimize its prominence. Garbage pickup area for new development Q:\TownhomesNFamilyDesGuide.doc Fig. 20: Garbage collection area screened from public street. K. Recycling containers and areas should conform to King County standards or as amended by Tukwila standards. Street Furniture L. Carry out the project's design concept with the choice of street furniture. M. Foster opportunities for social gathering by residents in shared open spaces by the provision of seating and other amenities. Separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian - oriented areas with the use of bollards and other barrier features. - 20 - Nov 1, 2007 January 24, 2007 TO: Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Community Development FM: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner MEMORANDUM RE: L06 -040, WSDOT I -405 Nickel Fund Project Special Permission, Director, Request to Fill Type 3 Wetlands Alter a Type 2 Wetland and Approve Off -Site Mitigation The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will be constructing improvements along I -405 between I -5 and the Cedar River in Renton. The improvements include a combination of pavement widening and lane re- striping to create additional north and southbound general purpose and auxiliary lanes and construction of a stormwater drainage system. The highway widening involves cutting into banks and filling depressions within the highway prism. WSDOT has mapped wetlands along the improvement corridor, three of which will be permanently impacted by the road improvements. The wetlands to be impacted were not inventoried as part of the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance as they are located in the interstate right -of -way, however they would be rated Type 3 wetlands and thus are regulated under the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The road widening also will require the construction of a new storm water pond near the intersection of I -5 and I -405, which will discharge to Gilliam Creek, impacting the creek and its buffers. There will also be several retaining walls constructed that fall within the buffer area of Gilliam Creek. Work in the shoreline for this project has been addressed under land use file L06 -037, shoreline substantial development permit. SEPA The Washington State Department of Transportation, the lead agency for environmental review, issued a Determination of Nonsignificance on October 2, 2006. (See Exhibit A.) CL Page l of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements \1..06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc Attachment B L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 Background The applicant has provided a Wetland Sensitive Area Study, JARPA maps identifying affected wetlands, Sensitive Areas Memo, an Updated Wetland Mitigation Memo, and Stormwater Pond Map. These are attached as Exhibits B -F. The wetlands are identified by WSDOT with a number based on its milepost location within the study area. The wetland also includes an identifier of "L" or "R "; the "L" indicates the wetland is located on the left (north) side of I -405 while "R" indicates the wetland is located on the right or south side of I -405. The JARPA drawings are attached which illustrate the location of each wetland. The wetlands proposed for alteration are the following: Wetland 0.4L, which is 0.11 acres (4792 sq. ft.) in size, of which 0.08 acres (3485 sq. ft.) will be permanently filled. Wetland 0.4L was not inventoried as part of the City's SAO update, however, it would be classified as a Type 3 wetland under the City's rating system and a Type IV under Ecology's rating system. See sheet 3 of the JARPA drawings. Permanent impacts to buffers equals 0.21 acres; temporary impacts to buffers equals 0.05 acres. Wetland 0.5L, which is 0.05 acres (2178 sq. ft.) in size, all of which will be permanently filled. Wetland 0.5L was not inventoried as part of the City's SAO update, however, it would be classified as a Type 3 wetland under the City's rating system and a Type IV under Ecology's rating system. See sheet 3 of the JARPA drawings. Wetland 0.6L, which is 0.17 acres (7,405 sq. ft.) in size, of which 0.01 acres (436 sq. ft.) will be permanently filled. Wetland 0.6L was not inventoried as part of the City's SAO update, however, it would be classified as a Type 3 wetland under the City's rating system and a Type IV under Ecology's rating system. See sheet 4 of the JARPA drawings. Permanent impacts to buffers equals 0.51 acres; temporary impacts to buffers equals 0.07 acres. The original proposal included alterations to Wetland 0.9L, the Nelson side channel, to allow the discharge of storm water from a new storm water pond that was to be constructed adjacent to the wetland. WSDOT has since determined it does not require a storm water pond to collect storm water from this portion of the I -405 corridor. Watercourses: Watercourses identified in the vicinity of the project are Gilliam Creek and Cottage Creek. No impacts to Cottage Creek are anticipated. There will be impacts to Gilliam Creek buffers - 10,441 sq. ft. of permanent impacts and 3,974 sq. ft. of temporary impacts. CL Page 2 of 12 Q:Wickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/14/2007 10:31:00 AM L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 Decision Criteria This Special Permission Director application is comprised of five elements: I. Request to fill or alter Type 3 wetlands including showing that the alterations are the minimum necessary for project feasibility; II. New surface water discharge to a sensitive area or its buffers from detention facilities, presettlement ponds or other surface water management structures; III. Request to permanently alter wetland buffers; IV. Request to permanently alter watercourse buffers and V. Request to locate the mitigation for permanent wetland impacts off -site at the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank in Renton. The decision criteria for each of these requested actions are discussed below. I. Request to Fill or Alter Type 3 Wetlands TMC 18.45.090 A. states that any use or development in a wetland is subject to review and approval by the Director. Isolated Type 3 wetlands may be altered or relocated only with the permission of the Director. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45. TMC 18.45.090 B. states that alterations to wetlands are discouraged and are limited to the minimum necessary for project feasibility. The Background Section identifies the wetlands that will be impacted and the amount of fill required for the road improvements. WSDOT considered using retaining walls or fill as the two options to provide additional road area for the widening. According to the Updated Wetland Mitigation Memorandum provided by WSDOT, the impacts to the wetlands, either temporary or permanent, are unavoidable due to roadway design standards. The memo states: "(T)he roadway is on a curve through this area. Decision standards require....additional width beyond the outside shoulder for horizontal sight distance. If a wall was used, it would...sit in the wetlands, impacting them as much or more than the fill slope that is proposed." Requests for alterations must meet the criteria that follow below. The criteria are in italics with the response following. a. The alteration will not adversely affect water quality; The wetlands to be altered or filled are located along the north side of I -405 within the right -of -way and adjacent to the roadway. Run -off from the western portion of the project closest to I -5 will be collected in a new storm water pond before the water is discharged to Gilliam Creek. For the eastern portion of the CL Page 3 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/14/2007 10:31:00 AM L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 project area, WSDOT determined that a storm water pond is not warranted at this time given the small amount of new impervious surface that is being created. At both the western and eastern ends of the project area, ecology embankments will be used to capture runoff at the edge of the pavement and provide water quality treatment. Ecology embankments consist of a trench that is dug along side the highway shoulder, laid with perforated pipe and backfilled with a filtration media. Water from the road flows into the ditch, is filtered by the media and then carried off site by the pipe. At the western end of the project area near I -5, the water will then move to the new storm water pond for detention before it is discharged to Gilliam Creek. At the eastern end of the project area, the ecology embankment will be used to treat the water, which then will filter into the ground. The WSDOT uses the Highway Runoff Manual, which has been developed for the design of stormwater management facilities. The Manual meets the level of stormwater management established by the Department of Ecology in its Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. As a result, the project is designed to meet or exceed the state water quality standards as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173.200 and 173.201. b. The alteration will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitat; The wetlands to be altered are located in the highway right -of -way and therefore provide very little habitat. c. The alteration will not have an adverse effect on drainage and/or storm water detention capabilities; The Technical Information Report for stormwater notes that two detention ponds totaling 2.08 acres will be used for stormwater flow control measures for the 1.5 acre increase in new pavement. Since the TIR was prepared, WSDOT has determined the storm water pond adjacent to the Nelson side channel is not needed, so only one storm water pond will be constructed. d. The alteration will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create an erosion hazard or contribute to scouring actions; Temporary erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices will be used during construction to prevent erosion. A detention pond will be used to collect stormwater run -off at the western end of the project and meter out water discharge to Gilliam Creek. e. The alteration will not be materially detrimental to any other property; and The road widening construction that will impact wetlands takes place in Washington State Department of Transportation right -of -way. CL Page 4 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/14/2007 10:31:00 AM L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 f The alteration will not have adverse effects on any other sensitive areas. The wetlands that will be impacted by the road work are not associated with Gilliam Creek, the only other sensitive area that falls within the project area. Impacts to the Green River were addressed through the Shoreline Substantial Development permit, L06 -037. The mitigation plan prepared by WSDOT is the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. While the City did not participate in the review and approval of this document, it has been approved by the State Department of Ecology, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal Highway Administration, the City of Renton and the Washington State Department of Transportation. II. New surface water discharge to a sensitive area or its buffers from detention facilities, presettlement ponds or other surface water management structures. TMC 18.45.070 B. permits the discharge of new surface water discharge to a sensitive area or its buffers from detention facilities, presettlement ponds or other surface water management structures if the discharge meets the clean water standards of RCW 90.48 and WAC 173.200 and 173.201 as amended and does not adversely affect water level fluctuations in the watercourse flow conditions relative to the existing rate. The project proposes to construct a new stormwater pond just east of the intersection of I -5 and I- 405, which will discharge to Gilliam Creek, a Type 2 stream under the City's sensitive areas ordinance (SAO). The Department of Transportation uses the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual, which is similar to the King County Surface Water Design Manual, to design its stormwater facilities. This Manual has been reviewed and approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The Highway Runoff Manual meets the level of stormwater management established by the Department of Ecology in its Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. As a result, the project is designed to meet or exceed the state water quality standards as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173.200 and 173.201. III. Request to Reduce and Permanently Alter Wetland Buffers The Sensitive Areas Ordinance permits the reduction of wetland and watercourse buffers by up to 50 percent, if an enhancement plan is provided and approved by the Director. Essential streets, roads and right -of -way such as I -405 are uses permitted by the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance subject to administrative review. For this road widening CL Page 5 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/14/2007 10:31:00 AM L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 project, WSDOT is working within a limited right -of -way and therefore the options for avoiding impacts to the sensitive areas and their buffers is constrained. Since no inner median exists within the majority of the I -405 corridor, all widening must occur to the outside of the existing roadway shoulders. As a result, some buffers will be reduced beyond the 50 %. The impacts to the wetland buffers will be caused by road widening adjacent to the wetland buffers that will encroach into the buffers. Retaining walls will not be used along the wetlands due to safety concerns. In some cases, construction of a retaining wall would encroach further into the wetland than the use of fill, which is what is proposed for wetlands 0.4L, 0.5L, and 0.6L. TMC 18.45.080 G.2. provides criteria for the approval of a buffer reduction: Buffer reduction with enhancement may be allowed provided: a. Additional protection to wetlands will be provided through the implementation of a buffer enhancement plan; and b. The existing condition of the buffer is degraded. The existing condition of the buffers is degraded and consists mostly of reed canarygrass, common cattail, soft rush, and Himalayan blackberry. Because the wetlands are in the shoulder right of way it is frequently mowed to preserve sight distance for vehicles traveling south on I -405. WSDOT originally proposed transferring the mitigation for permanent impacts to wetland buffers to the Springbrook Creek Wetland Mitigation Bank. After further discussions with the City, WSDOT will provide wetland buffer enhancement for permanent impacts to wetland buffers in the area identified on Exhibit G. Permanent impacts to wetland buffers total 31,363 sq. ft.; given the limited amount of area available for enhancement adjacent to the wetland, enhancement will occur at a 1:1 ratio. The wetland buffer will be planted with native wetland species, such as Pacific ninebark, Nootka rose, Snowberry, Redtwig Dogwood, Red - flowering currant, Scouler's willow and Cascara. Native wetland buffer plant species will be planted in areas of sparse vegetation or limited ground cover. The placement and spacing of the plants will vary to minimize mortality through competition with existing native species. Native plants will be planted on 4- to 6 -foot centers where possible. WSDOT's stated goal is to supplement existing native vegetation and increase diversity of species. As this is a design -build project, a planting plan will be prepared by the contractor selected through the competitive bid process at a later date and submitted to the City for review. CL Page 6 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/14/2007 10:31:00 AM L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 IV. Request to Reduce and Permanently Alter Watercourse Buffers As noted above, the SAO provides a mechanism for reducing watercourse buffers. The impacts to the watercourse buffers will be caused by several retaining walls to be constructed within the buffers for Gilliam Creek, starting at the I -405 entrance from Tukwila Parkway and proceeding eastward along the south side of the freeway. TMC 18.45.100 F provides that the Director may approve buffer reduction if it does not result in direct, indirect or long -term adverse impacts to the watercourse and that an enhancement plan is provided to improve the buffer function and value. The I -405 project will permanently impact 10,441 square feet of buffer for Gilliam Creek through the construction of the retaining walls but will not impact the stream itself. The SAO does not establish a mitigation ratio for impacts to watercourse buffers. The project will provide a total of 10,441 square feet of under -story stream buffer enhancement, as identified on Exhibit G and will be planted with native conifers such as Sitka spruce, hemlock or cedar trees. This is a mitigation ratio of 1:1. A total of approximately 27 trees will be planted at approximately 20 feet on center. Since this is a design/build project, a planting plan will be prepared by the contractor selected through the competitive bid process and submitted for review to the City at a later date. V. Request for Off -Site Mitigation WSDOT has received approval from the Washington State Department of Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to provide compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources caused by WSDOT highway construction projects within this service area at a wetland mitigation bank located to the east of Tukwila in the City of Renton. The objectives of the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank are to re- establish 17.79 acres of wetland, rehabilitate 52.47 acres of wetland, enhance 33.40 acres of wetland, and enhance 7.80 acres of upland and 6.56 acres of riparian upland adjacent to Springbrook Creek for a total of 118.02 acres. Approval of off site mitigation is subject to the following criteria from TMC 18.45.090 E. The criteria are identified in italics below, with a response following. 1. On -site mitigation shall be provided, except where the applicant can demonstrate that: (a) On -site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves or other factors; or (b) Mitigation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding land uses; or CL Page 7of12 Q:\■ickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/14/2007 10:31:00 AM L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 (c) Existing functional values created at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or (d) That established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site. Response: On -site wetland mitigation is not practical for the project as the wetlands are located in I -405 right -of -way. The limited amount of area remaining in the right -of -way limits the ability to create, restore or enhance remaining wetland area. As noted in III. Above, WSDOT will provide buffer enhancement for the remaining impacted wetland buffers. 2. Off -site mitigation shall occur within the same watershed where the wetland loss occurred. Response: the mitigation is proposed to take place in the Green/Duwamish River watershed, which is the same watershed in which the impacts are occurring. 3. Mitigation sites located within the Tukwila city limits are preferred. However, the Director may approve mitigation sites outside the city upon finding that: (a) Adequate measures have been taken to ensure the non - development and long -term viability of the mitigation site; and (b) Adequate coordination with the other affected local jurisdiction has occurred. Response: As noted above, WSDOT has received approval from the Department of Ecology and the COE to provide compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources caused by WSDOT highway construction projects within the service area at a wetland mitigation bank located in the City of Renton. The objectives of the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank are to re- establish 17.79 acres of wetland, rehabilitate 52.47 acres of wetland, enhance 33.40 acres of wetland, and enhance 7.80 acres of upland and 6.56 acres of riparian upland adjacent to Springbrook Creek for a total of 118.02 acres. Wetland rehabilitation is a type of wetland restoration, and is defined by the COE and Ecology. Wetland rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. 4. In selecting mitigation sites, applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of preference: (a) Upland sites that were formerly wetlands; CL Page 8 of 12 05/14/2007 10:31:00 AM Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 (b) Idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds or emergent vegetation; (c) Other disturbed upland; (d) Existing degraded wetland. Response: The Springbrook Mitigation Bank as a total project will reconnect floodplain wetlands with Springbrook Creek, re- establish historical wetlands, and improve water quality, hydrology, floodplain, habitat and riparian functions in a highly urbanized area. As such, it is a mix of upland that was formerly wetland, idled upland, disturbed upland and existing degraded wetland. The Wetland Sensitive Area Study notes that by consolidating the mitigation into one large site, the larger site will contribute aquatic ecosystem functions that are lacking in the local watershed while providing safe, high - quality wildlife habitat away from the dangers of a roadside location. One issue with the use of the Mitigation Bank is that the Bank credits are based on net ecological benefit. The value of one credit was developed to be equal in value to one acre of Category II wetland (as classified by the Department of Ecology's Wetland Classification System). The credits compensate at a 1:1 ratio for adverse impacts to a Category II wetland (a Type 1 wetland under Tukwila's rating system). For example, three acres of impacted Category II wetlands would require 3 credits would be deducted from the Bank. For Category IV wetlands (Type 3 wetlands in Tukwila) 0.70 credit is required per impact acre. While the mitigation credits under the Springbrook Mitigation Bank instrument vary based on the category of wetland affected by construction, the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) applies the same mitigation ratio, regardless of wetland type: Compensation of 1.5:1 is required for wetland creation or restoration and 3:1 compensation is required for wetland enhancement. Initially, WSDOT proposed to compensate for wetland impacts at less than the mitigation ratios required by the City's SAO for wetland creation or restoration. After discussions with the City, WSDOT will provide 1.5:1 mitigation for the Type 3 wetlands permanently impacted by the road construction. The Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank will be debited 0.148 credits to mitigate for the wetland impacts in Tukwila. The 0.148 CL Page 9 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/14/2007 10:31:00 AM L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 CONCLUSIONS credits equates to a mitigation ratio of 1.5:1 multiplied by the 0.70 credit per affected acre multiplied by the affected acreage in Tukwila, 0.14 acres. 1. The WSDOT is proposing improvements to I -405 using a combination of pavement widening and lane re- striping to create additional north and southbound general purpose and auxiliary lanes. 2. WSDOT, acting as the lead agency, issued a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance on October 2, 2006. 3. WSDOT is requesting Special Permission to fill or alter Type 3 wetlands; construct a new surface water discharge to a sensitive area (Gilliam Creek); reduce and alter both wetland and watercourse buffers and locate the majority of the mitigation for wetland impacts outside the City of Tukwila. 4. Essential streets, roads and rights -of -way such as Interstate 405 are a permitted use subject to administrative review under TMC 18.45.070 B.7. 5. The wetland alterations will not adversely affect water quality; WSDOT uses the Highway Runoff Manual for stormwater management design which meets the Ecology standards established for stormwater. The alteration will not adversely affect fish, wildlife or their habitat — ecology embankments will be used to filter the water before it reaches the stormwater pond that will discharge to Gilliam Creek, improving the water quality and quantity that reaches the stream. Currently there is no treatment of highway runoff in this area. 6. Due to the limited right -of -way available for the road widening, in some areas the wetland buffer will be less than 50% of the depth required. The reduced buffer area will be planted with native species and invasive species will be removed. 7. The project will permanently impact 10,441 sq. ft. of watercourse buffer. WSDOT will provide 10,441 sq. ft. of watercourse buffer enhancement with under -story plantings in the creek corridor between S. 61 Street and the entrance to northbound I -405 on Tukwila Parkway. New ecology embankments will be constructed to filter stormwater and one new stormwater pond will be constructed to hold stormwater before discharging to Gilliam Creek, which will improve water quality. Best Management Practices will be used during construction to control erosion and sedimentation. 8. TMC 18.45.040 B.3. permits the discharge of new surface water to a sensitive area or its buffers from detention facilities if the discharge meets the clean water standards of RCW 90.48 and WAC 173.200 and 173.201. This project proposes to discharge storm water from the new storm water pond to Gilliam Creek, a Type 2 stream under the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. WSDOT uses the Highway Runoff Manual, which meets the level of stormwater management established by the Department of Ecology in its Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. As a result, the project will meet or exceed the state water quality standards as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173.200 and 173.201. CL Page 10 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/14/2007 10:31:00 AM L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 9. The area for on -site wetland mitigation for permanent wetland impacts is limited due to the limited amount of area that will remain in the right -of -way once the road improvements are constructed. 10. Mitigation for permanent wetland impacts will be located at the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. WSDOT has received approval from the Department of Ecology and the COE to provide compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources caused by WSDOT highway construction projects within the service area at a wetland mitigation bank located in the City of Renton. WSDOT will meet the required 1.5:1 wetland mitigation ratio required by Tukwila's SAO by deducting 0.148 credits from the Mitigation Bank. 11. The Bank, due to its larger size, will contribute aquatic ecosystem functions that are lacking in the local watershed while providing safe, high - quality wildlife habitat away from the dangers of a roadside location. The off -site mitigation is located in the same basin as the wetlands, the Green River. 12. The Springbrook Mitigation Bank as a total project will reconnect floodplain wetlands with Springbrook Creek, re- establish historical wetlands, and improve water quality, hydrology, floodplain, habitat and riparian functions in a highly urbanized area. As such, it is a mix of upland that was formerly wetland, idled upland, disturbed upland and existing degraded wetland. 13. The project will provide 31,363 sq. ft. of wetland buffer enhancement on the north side of I -405 along the impacted wetland buffers. The buffers will be planted with native species to supplement existing native vegetation and increase diversity of species. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Special Permission permit with the following conditions: 1. Provide the name of the Environmental Compliance Manager and a copy of the Environmental Compliance Plan prior to the start of construction. 2. Provide a copy of the Temporary Erosion Control Plan and the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures prior to the start of construction. 3. Provide a copy of the landscaping plan for the proposed under -story plantings along Gilliam Creek and the wetland buffer plantings prior to the start of construction. 4. Provide a copy of the Best Management Practices required of the contractor prior to start of construction. CL Page 11 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements \L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/14/2007 10:31:00 AM L06 -040, Special Permission Director I -405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 Attachments: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: SEPA Determination of Nonsignficance Wetland Sensitive Area Study JARPA Drawings Updated Wetland Mitigation Memorandum Sensitive Area Memorandum Stormwater Pond Drawing January 18, 2007 WSDOT Response to City Comments CL Page 12 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements\L06 -040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/14/2007 10:31:00 AM To: Council From: Joan Hernandez Date: March 3, 2008 RE: Townhouse Design Guidelines After reading our Agenda, I met with Jack Pace and staff prior to the Regular Monday Meeting to resolve some concerns and answer some questions I have regarding the zoning code amendments for zero -lot line fee - simple townhouses. Depending upon whether my concerns are resolved, I may ask for additional discussion at our meeting for clarification purposes, or I may be proposing amendments in the following areas to assure that our guidelines produce quality townhouse developments that benefit both the community and the home - owners who purchase the homes: 1) The Poulsbo townhouse development provided good examples of a well -done project. However, driving one block outside of the new development I saw examples that inadequate parking space in a medium - density housing development just one block outside of the new construction area. (See photo example provided). In order for us to assure that owners will have adequate parking space without vehicles having to overhang curbs or pedestri . ' .i . ays, I propose a slight amendment to the section that addresses vehicular circulation on Pag 34 i ' our Agenda Packet under Parking N. I would like to amend the last sentence to read as follows. "Additional space should be provided where cars overhang curbs, "driveways, or pedestrian walkways." 2) My next concern is on the following page 35 in our Agenda Packet under S. It is written: "The optimum design for a parking area is not necessarily the one which parks the maximum number of vehicles, but the one that also provides ample stall and aisle widths, pedestrian walks, adequate turning radi, reasonable grades, efficient movement of traffic, pleasant appearance and convenient location." While I agree with this statement, it is not written as a requirement, suggestion, or recommendation. What is the incentive for a developer to use this information in their plans? In my opinion, it needs to be re- worded to include language that makes it clear that it is either required, preferred, or recommended. In addition, the word "length" needs to be added after "ample stall and aisle widths" so it reads "the optimum design for a parking area is not necessarily the one which parks the maximum number of vehicles, but the one that also provides ample stall and aisle widths, len!ths, pedestrian walks, adequate turning radi, reasonable grades, efficient movement of traffic, pleasant appearance and convenient location." 3) In the proposed Ordinance on Pag- 49, the fourth Whereas, states that after "three townhouse projects are built" staff shall prepare a r= . ort to evaluate the quality of the development and determine if any changes are necessary to the - guidelines. My concern is that we have no way of knowing how many "units" three to .use projects will consist of, and maybe the measurement before any evaluation is made sh . .1d be after a certain number of "units" are built rather than the number of projects. "Three p . ects" could be 300 or more units, or it could be less. If the measurement was done by "units" •e may be able to evaluate the project and correct any errors or omissions in our code in a mor timely manner. 4) On page 59 of our Agenda Packet under C. the language refers to the "Townhouse Design Manual." Our Agenda Packet on Page 30 refers to "Townhouse Design Guidelines." Are these one and the same? If so we should use consistent terminology. Or are we going to be creating a separate manual and adopting it separately? 5) One of the reasons the Poulsbo ownhouses were so visually attractive and appealing was that it appears their design guidelin included reference to "color." Each unit had a different and unique color scheme that blended th the rest of the development in a very attractive manner. Is there a way we can take advantage of this design feature in our design guidelines? 6) If we had a definition sect' n, I think terms like "low impact development techniques" should be defined for added clarifi tion. Minnie Dhaliwal - City of Tukwila Towne Code Amendments - Notice of Public He -g From: Minnie Dhaliwal To: carlos @hdltcollaborative.com; fleestenson @aol.... Date: 10/25/2007 5:21 pm Subject: City of Tukwila Townhouse Code Amendments- Notice of Public Hearing Thank you, Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner City of Tukwila 206 - 431 -3685 mdhaliwaICalci.tukwila.wa.us As some of you already know that the City of Tukwila is currently reviewing its multi - family development standards to determine what changes are needed to encourage townhouse development. Planning Commission held a hearing on June 28th and asked the staff to prepare design guidelines specific to townhouse development. There will be another Planning Commission public hearing on Nov 8, 2007, at 7:00 PM on the proposed code changes. Please email me back if you are still interested in the proposed changes and I will mail you the staff report with draft regulations. Please feel free to pass this along to others who may have an interest in the subject and let me know if you have questions or comments. Page 1 carlos@hdltcollaborative.com fleestenson @aol.com kwilson(acascade- partners.com mikevoerbeck@excite.com parmjk @msn.com pazooki sfghome.com steve@rehabitatnorthwest.com , I • • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 128 - 1o= Avenue SW • PO Box 42525 • Olympia, Washington 98504.2525 • (360725-4000 August 27, 2007 Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Ms. Gierloff: Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) the following materials as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural requirement. City of Tukwila - Adopted Ordinances 2173, 2174, 2175, and 2176, development code and zoning amendments, regarding SEPA thresholds, non - conforming setbacks, wetland mitigation credits, retaining walls, etc. These materials were received on 08/27/2007 and processed with the Material ID # 12048. We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies. If this is a draft amendment, adopted amendments should be sent to CTED within ten days of adoption and to any other state agencies who commented on the draft. If you have any questions, please call me at (360) 725 -3063. Sincerely, .Cindy Weyi �a.+c Sam Wentz GIS Coordinator Growth Management Services Enclosure STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES REVIEWING DEV BEGS Revised December 19, 2006 Cities and counties need to send their development regulations to the agencies' representatives, as listed below, at least 60 days ahead of adoption. Adopted development regulations should be sent to Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) immediately upon publication, as well as to any state agencies that commented on the draft regulation. A jurisdiction does not need to send its regulation to the agencies which have been called ahead and that have indicated the local plan will not be reviewed. The jurisdiction should keep a record of this contact with state agencies and the state agencies response Elizabeth McNagny Department of Social and Health Services Post Office Box 45848 Olympia, Washington 98504 -5848 (360) 902 -8164 Fax: 902 -7889 Email: mcnagec @dshs.wa.gov Jennifer Hayes Department of Fish and Wildlife Post Office Box 43155 Olympia, Washington 98504 -3155 Tel: (360) 902 -2562 Fax: (360) 902 -2946 Email: hayesilh@,dfw.wa.gov Review Team CTED Growth Management Services Post Office Box 42525 Olympia, Washington 98504 -2525 (360) 725 -3000 Fax: (360) 753 -2950 Email: reviewteam @cted.wa.gov Anne Sharar Department of Natural Resources Post Office Box 47001 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7001 (360) 902 -1739 Fax: (360) 902 -1776 Email: anne.sharar(wwadnr.gov John Aden Department of Health Division of Drinking Water Post Office Box 47822 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7822 (360) 236 -3157 Fax: (360) 236 -2252 Email: John.Aden @doh:wa.gov SEPA/GMA Coordinator Department of Ecology Post Office Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7600 (360) 407 -6960 Fax: (360) 407 -6904 Email: gmacoordination@ecy.wa.gov Ron Shultz Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Post Office Box 40900 Olympia, Washington 98504 -0900 (360) 725 -5470 Fax (360) 725 -5456 Email: rshultz(a7psat.wa.gov Bill Wiebe Department of Transportation Post Office Box 47300 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7370 (360) 705 -7965 Fax: 705 -6813 Email: wiebeb @wsdot.wa.gov S: \Gmu\ADMIN \Lists \State Agencies Reviewing Dev Regs 12- 06.doc Rebecca Barney Department of Corrections Post Office Box 41112 Olympia, Washington 98504 -1112 (360) 753 -3973 Fax: (360) 586 -8723 Email: rmbarnev( doc i .wa.dov CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 -2599 (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 TO: £ ��n n /�G�r�a ,c.►+ �� ATE: - 024 ADDRESS: P. 0 . X 1� a r REGARDING: fly �►�; �, . L-&A ‘9.86 �S ATTENTION: f,, ;f.,3 WE ARE SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING Attached ❑ Under Separate Cover • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Copies Description These Are Transmitted A, (2rrJivIAnr , ❑ For Approval AI - j l '7 4 , aft 7 A, n21 /, ❑ For Review And Comment YSt For Your Use And Information ❑ As Requested ❑ Other COMMENTS: i� 11 Io 53 °) . - v ir cv L l c, . ' � - ! 7f t ✓1 a.LL y SIGNED: �_,�, Utz, l.- ),-cr{P TITLE: ( j 1 v cc Published: Seattle Times — 7/2/07 • Ci,y of f Tukwila CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Zoning Code Amendments that will: Jane E. Cantu, CMC City Clerk • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, July 16, 2007 beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, to consider the following: a) Provide an administrative lot area variance in the LDR zone and update the permit classification table; b) Restrict expansion of houses into non - conforming setbacks; c) Create a process for determining the number of wetland mitigation credits required for off -site mitigation; and d) Allow retaining walls up to four feet high in setbacks, allow retaining walls over four feet high in setbacks under certain conditions. All interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval, disapproval, or opinions on this issue. For those unable to attend in person, you may submit written testimony to the City Clerk's office until 5 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible. The City strives to accommodate people with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations are available at the public hearing with advance notice. This notice is also available in alternate formats for individuals with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at (206) 433 -1800 or TDD (206) 248 -2933 if we can be of assistance. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Mr,,t-AzA A e,,rioc,-k A.c„adr-04-1 s Lo ( - orNl c 19 1 .); 7 k01 ; A/Ne-r - 2/1(.4o7 - 0 ( „2c." 4-s ,L) , 04-Ltr (rt 0 oft— t) , a (_\ ;S G ✓ t ," . , -)4P rt 4.7 C ' . �- 4 . ,. - - --- :��- o CT \ - - 4 \0? .£'fire-' ( / , DivweicAt dn .D+ \ off ? _ V 1 o'er ke-c - r (v-e . �e r rn 7L- 6k-i\V Q 4r \‘' o a c-cr - e t - 1. iDDO ctvNi-\ )&,( ID 6Affitit al .,1■11•1 I e. ---- 0 HL LA rteC o‘ t34.,,q) A _ L9_?(•rN 0-0 b z-v45r-1 111, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 128 - 10° Avenue SW • PO Box 42525 • Olympia. Washington 98504 -2525 • (360) 725 -4000 June 26, 2007 Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Ms. Gierloff: • • STATE OF WASHINGTON RECEIVED UUL' 0 2 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) the following materials as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural requirement. City of Tukwila - Proposed amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision that would allow for the platting of zero -lot line townhouses. These materials were received on 06/26/2007 and processed with the Material ID # 11829. We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies. If this is a draft amendment, adopted amendments should be sent to CTED within ten days of adoption and to any other state agencies who commented on the draft. If you have any questions, please call me at (360) 725 -3063. Sincerely, Tammy Wright for Sam Wentz GIS Coordinator Growth Management Services Enclosure Elizabeth McNagny Department of Social and Health Services Post Office Box 45848 Olympia, Washington 98504 -5848 (360) 902 -8164 Fax: 902 -7889 Email: mcnagec(dshs.wa.gov Jennifer Hayes Department of Fish and Wildlife Post Office Box 43155 Olympia, Washington 98504 -3155 Tel: (360) 902 -2562 Fax: (360) 902 -2946 Email: havesilhAdfw.wa.gov Review Team CTED Growth Management S ervices Post Office Box 42525 Olympia, Washington 98504 -2525 (360) 725 -3000 Fax: (360) 753 -2950 Email: reviewteamActed.wa.aov Anne Sharar Department of Natural Resources Post Office Box 47001 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7001 (360) 902 -1739 Fax: (360) 902 -1776 Email: anne.shararAwadnr.gov John Aden Department of Health Division of Drinking Water Post Office Box 47822 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7822 (360) 236 -3157 Fax: (360) 236 -2252 Email: John.AdenAdoh.wa.gov • • STATE AGENCIES REVIEWING DEV REGS Revised December 19, 2006 Cities and counties need to send their development regulations to the agencies' representatives, as listed below, at least 60 days ahead of adoption. Adopted development regulations should be sent to Washington State Depar tment of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) immediately upon publication, as well as to any state agencies that commented on the draft regulation. A jurisdiction does not need to send its regulation to the agencies which have been called ahead and that have indicated the local plan will not be reviewed. The jurisdiction should keep a record of this contact with state agencies and the state agencies response. SEPA/GMA Coordinator Department of Ecology Post Office Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7600 (360) 407 -6960 Fax: (360) 407 -6904 Email: gmacoordinationAecv.wa.gov Bill Wiebe Department of Transportation Post Office Box 47300 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7370 (360) 705 -7965 Fax: 705 -6813 Email: wiebebAwsdot.wa.gov Rebecca Barney Department of Corrections Post Office Box 41112 Olympia, Washington 98504 -1112 (360) 753 -3973 Fax: (360) 586 -8723 Email: rmbarnevAdoc1.wa.gov S: \Gmu\ADMIN \Lists \State Agencies Reviewing Dev Regs 12- 06.doc Ron Shultz Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Post Office Box 40900 Olympia, Washington 98504 -0900 (360) 725 -5470 Fax (360) 725 -5456 Email: rshultzApsat.wa.gov Nora Gierloff - Re: Administrative varian - criteria From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Nora, Peter Beckwith Gierloff, Nora 06/26/2007 11:33 am Re: Administrative variance criteria Kerslake, Shelley Good morning. Material hardships can be defined as "special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, when the strict application of the zoning code is found to deprive subject property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification." Similar language is found in TMC 18.72.020(2). Since the question of what constitutes a material hardship has arisen, I would suggest that we either define the term material hardship or insert this general definition of material hardship in its place to avoid this issue in the future. If you have any questions let me know. Peter Peter B. Beckwith Kenyon Disend, PLLC The Municipal Law Firm 11 Front Street South Issaquah, Washington 98027 425/392 -7090 - phone 425/392 -7071 - fax Peter @KenyonDisend.com »> Nora Gierloff 06/20/2007 1:04 pm »> Hi Peter, Below is the language that we are proposing to add to the Zoning Code to allow some flexibility in short platting. Either you or Shelley had suggested some criteria, reflected below, including #6. Could you define what "material hardship" would mean in this context? The PC would like me to report back at next Thursdays meeting. Thanks, Nora TMC 18.50.140 Administrative Lot Area Variance in LDR A property owner in the LDR zone may apply for a reduction in lot size of up to 500 square feet per lot for up to two lots. This shall be processed as a Type 2 decision concurrent with the short plat or boundary line adjustment application and approved only if all of the following criteria would be met. 1) The current or past property owner has not reduced the area of the lot in question by BLA, short plat or sale of adjacent Tots under common ownership after the effective date of Ord. 2097 (August 6, 2005). 2) The new lots would be able to meet all other development standards including setbacks, lot width, maximum building footprint and parking. 3) Lots that have received a reduction in size through the PRD process are not eligible for further reductions through this variance process. 4) The variance is compatible with and meets the spirit of the comprehensive plan and will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and the rights of the neighboring property owners. 5) The lot must not contain a multi - family structure or an accessory dwelling unit. 6) The variance permitted is the minimum variance necessary to relieve a material hardship which cannot be relieved by any other means. 7) The granting of the variance will not cause a substantial detrimental effect to the public interest. Nora Gierloff - RE: Tukwila Code Amenets From: To: Date: Subject: Thank you Paul Johnson Paul Johnson Growth Management Unit Local Government Division Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic Development (360) 725 -3048 paulj @cted.wa.gov Original Message From: Nora Gierloff [mailto :ngierloff @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 11:14 AM To: CTED GMU Review Team Subject: Tukwila Code Amendments June 26, 2007 Growth Management Services Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development PO Box 42525 906 Columbia St. SW Olympia, WA 98504 -8350 Attn: Review Team: "CTED GMU Review Team" <reviewteam @cted.wa.gov> "Nora Gierloff' <ngierloff @ci.tukwila.wa.us> 06/26/2007 11:17 am RE: Tukwila Code Amendments In accordance with the RCW 36.70A.106 the City of Tukwila notifies Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development of the intent to adopt amendments to its development regulations. Public Testimony will be taken on this item until the public hearing before the City Council on July 16, 2007. We are providing you an electronic copy of the proposed amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision that would allow for the platting of zero -lot line townhouses. If you have any questions concerning these amendments, please call me at (206)433 -7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Enclosures Dept. Of Community Development . City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 1, (2 HEREBY DECLARE THAT: l Notice of Public Hearing Project Number: Ni A Determination of Non- Significance Person requesting mailing: /\J Q i Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit -- FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed . on this)._ " C' day o year 2007 P:W DMINISTRATIVEFORMS \FORMSWFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION n the Project Name: Z C 'Q , y( /4/L , 1014//01 Project Number: Ni A Mailer's Signature:.. Person requesting mailing: /\J Q i Was mailed to each of the addresses listed . on this)._ " C' day o year 2007 P:W DMINISTRATIVEFORMS \FORMSWFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION n the Betty Brooks 12217 46 Av S. Tukwila, WA 98178 Fred Yalmeh B &F Construction Co. 11009 156th PI NE Redmond, WA 98052 -2608 • • Jonathan Brown 17400 158th Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Mary Ryan PO Box 336 Renton WA 98057 6 /2z / 0 7 S & o t -- _ ?. w - _s . -- -- — — - - - -- • - 2- -. . ? 3 _ �- - .._ - - .� • l-_� ►�. -1-� - Crw. ?P 7 ._ _de.4_1_ -046 oL __A(A.LtAn. A DtrIv b- 016.,[ R e_c..ry■ a- 0._b (7 <- 0 r\ o.)U p 4 N49,,_)10 14, 00-1 ix ODD - I 'PC- 0 00 tc. Nr) 0-i-- d1/4,Crext‘ 1 c'IAAc-v) k..)u ok (ix.v1 ye 9L -r A,— _Al ,r- , T - 0" 1?-c2 P--LAk7.7_ ' PNGS-- Retaining Wall Setback Waiver Example 18.50.150 Retaining Wall Setback Waiver Retaining walls with an exposed height greater than four feet may be allowed in required front, side or rear yard setbacks under the following circumstances: 1. When the applicant's property is on the lower side of the retaining wall and it is not visible from adjacent properties or is screened by landscaping, or 2. When a wall built on a property line or perpendicular to it benefits the lots on both sides and the owners of both properties agree to jointly maintain the wall, or 3. When a wall in a front yard is required due to roadway expansion or improvements, or 4. When a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road that meets Fire Department slope requirements and the exposed face e e h ° ' `i t a nun- u-a���i a�i � �i �i�cc�u treater -e+ is screened with landscaping. - OR- 4. When a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road to meet Fire Department slope requirements and the exposed face is; tcc-- �l..e� (a) not visible from adjacent properties, or 19 ( (b) screened by landscaping, or II ' i e wall -o -wa DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 128 -10� Avenue SW • PO Box 42525 • Olympia. Washington 98504 -2525 ' (360) 725-4000 May 22, 2007 Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Tukwila. Washington 98188 Dear Ms. Gierloff: • • STATE OF WASHINGTON RECEIVED MAY 2 9 2007 Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) the following materials as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural requirement. City of Tukwila - Proposed development regulations and zoning code amendments. These materials were received on 05/18/2007 and processed with the Material ID # 11689. We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies. If this is a draft amendment, adopted amendments should be sent to CTED within ten days of adoption and to any other state agencies who commented on the draft. If you have any questions, please call me at 360 725 -3064. Sincerely, ) e` (f i%ik! Anne Fritzel Growth Management Planner Growth Management Services Enclosure Elizabeth McNagny Department of Social and Health Services Post Office Box 45848 Olympia, Washington 98504 -5848 (360) 902 -8164 Fax: 902 -7889 Email: mcnagec(")a.dshs.wa.gov Jennifer Hayes Department of Fish and Wildlife Post Office Box 43155 Olympia, Washington 98504 -3155 Tel: (360) 902 -2562 Fax: (360) 902 -2946 Email: havesilh a.dfw.wa.gov Review Team CTED Growth Management Services Post Office Box 42525 Olympia, Washington 98504 -2525 (360) 725 -3000 Fax: (360) 753 -2950 Email: reviewteame.cted.wa.aov Anne Sharar Department of Natural Resources Post Office Box 47001 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7001 (360) 902 -1739 Fax: (360) 902 -1776 Email: anne.shararewadnr.aov John Aden Department of Health Division of Drinking Water Post Office Box 47822 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7822 (360) 236 -3157 Fax: (360) 236 -2252 Email: John.Aden(a)_doh.wa.00v • STATE AGENCIES REVIEWING DEV REGS Revised December 19, 2006 Cities and counties need to send their development regulations to the agencies' representatives, as listed below, at least 60 days ahead of adoption. Adopted development regulations should be sent to Washington State Depar tment of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) immediately upon publication, as well as to any state agencies that commented on the draft regulation. A jurisdiction does not need to send its regulation to the agencies which have been called ahead and that have indicated the local plan will not be reviewed. The jurisdiction should keep a record of this contact with state agencies and the state agencies response. SEPA/GMA Coordinator Department of Ecology Post Office Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7600 (360) 407 -6960 Fax: (360) 407 -6904 Email: omacoordinationaecv.wa.aov Bill Wiebe Department of Transportation Post Office Box 47300 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7370 (360) 705 -7965 Fax: 705 -6813 Email: wiebeb(a,wsdot.wa.gov Rebecca Barney Department of Corrections Post Office Box 41112 Olympia, Washington 98504 -1112 (360) 753 -3973 Fax: (360) 586 -8723 Email: rmbarnev(a)_doc1.wa.00v S: \Gmu\ADMIN \Lists \State Agencies Reviewing Dev Regs 12- 06.doc Ron Shultz Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Post Office Box 40900 Olympia, Washington 98504 -0900 (360) 725 -5470 Fax (360) 725 -5456 Email: rshultz(a.psat.wa.gov 1 Nora Gierloff - Tukwila Code Amendme Page 1J From: Nora Gierloff To: reviewteam @cted.wa.gov Date: 05/18/2007 2:52 pm Subject: Tukwila Code Amendments Attn: Review Team: In accordance with the RCW 36.70A.106 the City of Tukwila notifies Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development of the intent to adopt amendments to its development regulations. Public Testimony will be taken on this item until June 8, 2007. A public hearing before the Planning Commission has been scheduled for May 24, 2007. We are providing you an electronic copy of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code in three areas that would: 1) Limit single family expansions within non - conforming setbacks; 2) Modify retaining wall setbacks; 3) Provide an administrative variance for single family lot size up to 500 sf; 4) Update the Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010; 5) Allow the DCD Director to establish the number of wetland mitigation bank credits needed for specific off -site mitigation proposals; 6) Raise the SEPA thresholds for commercial /industrial construction to 12,000sf and 40 parking spaces; and 7) Adopt the optional DNS process. If you have any questions concerning these amendments, please call me at (206)433 -7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor �.w.�s. Tukwila City Council Agenda 41 ' ❖ REGULAR MEETING ❖ lt WO \ ; \. z Jim Haggerton, Mayor r `ounctltnembers: • Joan Hernandez • Pam Linder ` M. Rhonda Berry, City Administrator • Dennis Robertson • Verna Griffin Joe Duffie, Council President • Kathy Hougardy • De'Sean Quinn , ..,'F' af a Monday, March 3, 2008; 7 :00 PM • Ord #2199 • Res #1659 1. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE / ROLL CALL 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS • 2008 King County Council Goals; Julia Patterson, King County Councilmember. • 2007 Chamber of Commerce Report; Nancy Damon, President. 3. PROCLAMATIONS/ APPOINTMENTS a. Appointment of Christy O'Flaherty to the position of City Clerk, effective April 1, 2008. Pg.1 b. Authorize the Mayor to create the position of Director of Information Technology. Pg.5 c. Appointment of Mary Miotke to the position of Director of Information Technology, Pg.S effective March 1, 2008. , 4. CITIZEN COMMENT At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on this agenda (please limit your comments to five minutes per citizen). To comment on an item listed on this agenda, please save your comments until the issue is presented for discussion. 5. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of Minutes: 2/19/08 (Regular). b. Approval of Vouchers. 6. BID AWARDS Award a contract to Pacific Sheet Metal and Roofing, LLC for the Minkler Shops Re -Roof, Pg.9 Building B, Project in the amount of $87,446.70, including sales tax (see 2/25/08 C.O. W.). 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. A resolution increasing the Municipal Court Change Fund level. Pg.11 b. Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Coban Research and Technologies, Inc. Pg.15 for purchase and installation of digital in -car video for the patrol cars in the amount of $150,532.47 (see 2/25/08 C.O. W.). c. Authorize the Mayor to sign an amendment to the conditions of Contract #07 -165 with Pg.17 Sound Inspections and Investigative Engineers, LLC for the Westfield Mall Expansion Project to change the scope of work, contract time, and contact amount to $65,000 (no impact to the General Fund) (see 2/25/08 C.O. W.). , d. Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Freedman Tung & Bottomley (FTB) for Pg.19 services to complete the Tukwila Urban Center Plan in the amount of $81,540 (grant funded) (see 2/25/08 C.O. W.). e. Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with KPG, Inc. for the 2008 -2009 Overlay Pg.21 Program in the amount of $89,561.60 (see2/25/08 C.O. W.). f. Authorize the Mayor to sign an airspace lease with the Museum of Flight Foundation Pg23 for the pedestrian bridge over East Marginal Way South (see 2/25/08 C.O. W.). g. Authorize the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Renton for the Pg.25 Strander Boulevard Extension Project in the amount of $2,801,000 (see 2/25/08 C.O. W.). h. An ordinance amending TMC Title 17, "Subdivision Code," and Title 18, "Zoning Code," Pg.27 to allow development of zero-lot- line /fee - simple townhouses on individual lots. i. Authorize the acquisition of technology devices for use by the City Council in an Pg.63 amount not to exceed $50,000 (see 2/25/08 C.O.W. and 1/28/08 C.O. W.). 8. NEW BUSINESS Authorize the approval of two defibrillator units for the Fire Department in the amount Pg.65 of $25,820.63. 9. REPORTS a. Mayor c. Staff e. Intergovernmental b. City Council d. City Attorney 10. MISCELLANOUS 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION 12. ADJOURNMENT Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible. Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice to the City Clerk's Office 206- 433 - 1800 /TDD 206 -248 -2933. This notice is available at www.ci.tukwila.wa.us, and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities. Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped. - i \ Special Meetings may be called at any time with proper public notice. Proc as those used in Regular Council meetings. Executive Sessions may be called to inform the Co matters. 1. The proponent shall speak first and is allowed 15 minutes for a 2. The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation. 3. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal. 4. Citizens who wish to address the Council may speak for 5 time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken. HOW TO TESTIFY If you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and address clearly for the record. Please observe the basic rules of courtesy when speaking and limit your comments to five minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens, but may not be able to take immediate action on comments received until they are referred to a Committee or discussed under New Business. COUNCIL MEETINGS No Council meetings are scheduled on the fifth Monday of the month unless prior public notification is given. Regular Meetings: The Mayor, elected by the people to a four -year term, presides at all Regular Council meetings held on the first and third Mondays of each month at 7 PM. Official Council action in the form of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing of ordinances can only be taken at Regular Council meetings. Committee of the Whole Meetings: Council members are elected for a four -year term. The Council president is elected by the Council members to preside at all Committee of the Whole meetings for a one- year term. Committee of the Whole meetings are held the second . and fourth Mondays at 7 PM. Issues discussed are forwarded to the Regular Council meeting for official action. GENERAL INFORMATION At each Council meeting citizens are given the opportunity to address the Council on items that included on the agenda during Citizen Comment. Please limit your comments to five minutes. of pending legal action, financial or personnel PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action of matters affecting the public interest such as land -use laws, annexations, rezone requests, public safety issues, etc Section 2.04.150 of the Tukwila Municipal Code states the following guidelines for Public Hearings: presentation.' utes each. No one may speak a second 5. After each speaker has spoken, the Council may question, the speaker. ' Each speaker can respond to the question, but may not engage in further debate at this time. 6. After the Public Hearing is closed, the Council may discuss the issue among themselves without further public testimony. Council action may be taken at this time or postponed to another date. CAS NUMBER: 08 — 0 f —1 ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2008 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Townhouse Zoning and Subdivision Code Amendments. JP Arm 2/11/08 ❑ Motion Mtg Date ❑ Resolution Mtg Dote r ❑ Bid Award Mtg Date ❑ Other Mtg Date CATEGORY Al Discussion ' Ordinance ■ Public Hearing Mtg Date Mt Date 03/03/08 Mt Date 02/11/08 SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Adm Svcs ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ Legal ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PIP' • Mayor /1 DCD SPONSOR'S The proposal SUMMARY zero -lot line is to amend the zoning townhomes in MDR and subdivision codes to allow for development of and HDR zones. REVIEWED BY ❑ COW Mtg. ❑ Utilities DA1h: 1 Cmte ❑ F &S Cmte ❑ Parks -08- 07,12 -13 ❑ Transportation Cmte /1 CA &P Cmte ❑ Arts Comm -28 -08 (CAP), 6- 28 -07, Comm ►1 Planning Comm 11 - 07 (PC) RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR COMMIT /ADMIN. Hold the public hearing on the proposed draft ordinance. Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole LEE Unanimous ICO T II!lIIPACT / FUN SOW EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $ $ Fund Source: N/A Comments: E CORD > -: - , �; 02/11/08 Forward to 3/3/08 Regular Meeting ATT AC H MENTS ,; �` r 02/11/08 Information memo dated 02 -01 -08 with attachments, to include draft Ordinance Minutes from Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 01- 28 -08. 03/03/08 Informational Memorandum dated 2/27/08 Townhouse Design Guidelines Ordinance in Final Form Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Council review 02/11 08 JP Arm 03/03/08 JP .,--- ..e•.i r 1 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials =M INFO'RMAT ITEM NO. 7 -h. INFORMATION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Haggerton Tukwila City Council FROM: Jack Pace, DCD Direct DATE: February 27, 2008 SUBJECT: Townhouse Zoning and Subdivision Code Amendments ISSUE Should the Zoning and Subdivision Codes be changed to allow for development of zero -lot line /fee simple townhomes on individual lots? BACKGROUND After holding the public hearing on February 11, 2008, the City Council asked staff to make the following changes to the draft ordinance and the Townhouse Design Guidelines: 1. Add a `whereas" clause stating that Council wishes to get a report after three townhouses are built to evaluate if any additional changes need to be made. 2. Clarify that setbacks can be counted towards recreation space requirements only for townhouses. Section 18 of the ordinance has been amended to reflect this change. 3. Require low impact development techniques for allowing development coverage to increase from 50% to 75 %. This requirement shall be discretionary approval by the Director provided the site allows low impact development techniques and the drainage design meets all adopted codes. Section 17 of the ordinance has been amended to reflect this change. 4. Replace the word "should" with "shall" in paragraph 1 on page 1 of the Townhouse Design Guidelines. 5. Reformat page 10 of the Townhouse Design Guidelines so that the headings "do this" and "not this" are adjacent to the appropriate photo. 6. Add language stating "Flat roofs shall be discouraged" on page 12 of the Townhouse Design Guidelines. The attached ordinance and Townhouse Design Guidelines reflect these changes discussed above. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Ordinance and Townhouse Design Guidelines. MD Page 1 02 -27 -2008 Q: \Townhomes \COW- 03 -03 -08 Townhouse.DOC 29 30 I. SITE PLANNING TOWNHOUSE DESIGN GUIDELINES Streetscape - The transition from public to private spaces A. The transition from a pedestrian oriented streetscape to multi -story buildings shall emphasize pedestrian scale architectural elements such as porches, plantings of varying heights, and use pedestrian oriented entries, courts, and lighting. It is possible to make the transition to the site, building and individual unit in many different physical ways. For example, a sidewalk could lead through a gate to a private yard and then to a porch before reaching the front door of the townhouse. The most successful solution will consist of a combination of the above suggested symbolic definers or other comparable mechanisms. —Bami, ranasraping arsd architttnve form a gateway. Fig. 1: Project entry provides an immediate sense of high quality design. Q :1Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 1 - March 3, 2007 B. Provide a clearly defined building or courtyard entry from the primary street. 1. Use distinctive architectural elements and materials to indicate the entry such as a change in paving material, low wall, steps, trellis, or arbor. 2. Define the transition space from the sidewalk to the entry with a terrace, plaza, or landscaped area. 3. Consider turning the end unit (or pair of units) to face the public street, see Figure 20. Natural Environment — Retain natural site amenities C. Incorporate existing healthy and attractive vegetation into project design by locating buildings to maximize significant tree retention on slopes, retain tree stands, and minimize disturbance of sensitive areas. Retaining large stature trees and tree stands on site very significantly improves the integration of new developments into Tukwila's mature neighborhoods. Fig. 2: Site buildings and roads to retain mature trees. Q: \Townhomes\MFami IyDesGu i de. doc _ 2 _ March 3, 2007 31 D. Landform grading should be used when feasible to reflect the natural topography and retain mature trees. Conventional Site Planning L.and.f orm Site Planning Fig. 3: Comparison of conventional and landform site grading. E. Site coverage on slopes should be minimized to reduce visual impact. Site coverage limitations are not as significant on flat sites where lower buildings may be preferable to maximize architectural harmony with nearby structures and the streetscape. F. Site design should be integrated with the neighborhood. Project design integration should include coordination of circulation, landscaping, recreation spaces, and building location with the surrounding area. A visual distinction using landform, landscaping, or materials may separate a project from the general neighborhood. However, high "fortress" walls should be avoided and buildings should not turn their backs to the street. . Q :1Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 3 - March 3, 2007 3 2 Circulation — Pedestrian G. A comprehensive system of pedestrian sidewalks should link all building/unit entries, parking lots, recreation areas and the project entries with the area -wide sidewalk system. H. Sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet wide between public roadway and the junction where pedestrian traffic begins to disperse. This would allow one pedestrian to pass another and remain on the sidewalk. A minimum four foot wide sidewalk may then be acceptable. I. Sidewalk crossings of on -site roadways should be distinguished by a different material and slightly raised to prevent runoff from flowing across them. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc -co F Facrkil "w>� Fig. 4: Key sidewalk intersections and segments are marked with contrasting pavers. J. Buildings should be separated at least 8 feet from driveways and parking spaces where facing windowed walls (but not the entry) of ground units and have a minimum 13 foot separation when facing the entry of ground units. K. Separate buildings from common walkways by at least 8 feet in the structure's front and rear, and a minimum 4 feet on its side. L. Separation guidelines do not apply to incidental structures such as trellises, 18 inch roof eaves, chimneys, covered walks, and pedestrian oriented amenities. - 4 - March 3, 2007 33 34 Circulation — Vehicular M. Design the on -site vehicle circulation system as follows: • A maximum of two vehicle access points, depending on parcel characteristics and difficulty of access, to reduce traffic impacts and the site area devoted to roads instead of architecture and landscape /recreation space, • Create very low volume cul -de -sacs to allow multiple use as street oriented social/recreation areas, and • Stress shared driveways between adjacent developments. Parking N. Locate parking to minimize conflicts between autos and pedestrians. Driveways should avoid crossing pedestrian walkways and paths from residence to children's play area. In large parking lots, provide pedestrian walkways to allowing people to move safely. Additional space should be provided where cars overhang curbs. 0. Separate driveway parking areas with landscape islands to create an individual unit entry and reduce the appearance of large areas of paving. Q:1Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide. doc Fig. 5: Separation of driveways with landscape islands. P. Provide the majority of the required parking spaces in attached garages (tandem parking allowed), underground parking, and underbuilding parking when grades permit at least partial screening. Q Minimize the prominence of surface parking by using architecture and landscaping to break up or screen parking areas, moving parking to the side or rear, and breaking up large parking areas into smaller ones. _ 5 _ March 3, 2007 Fig. 6: Parking located so that it is screened by buildings. R. Supplemental parking areas should be located within 200 feet of the farthest dwelling unit served for the convenience of residents � kr° S. The optimum desi for a parking area is not necessarily the one which parrs the epAximum number of vehicles), .. ample stall and aisle widthved stna walks, adequate turning radii, reasonable grades, efficient movement of traffic, pleasant appearance, and convenient location. T. Four to six space parking lots are pedestrian and human in character, while over twelve cars become car dominated. The critical number seems to be ten. This marks the breaking point between a human lot and a sea of cars. Small lots can be accomplished by breaking large parking areas into sections that serve no more than 10 to 12 cars. Landscape islands and areas should be located to protect cars as well as to break up seas of asphalt. Solar Orientation U. To maximize the warming effect of solar radiation in winter months and maximize shade in the summer months: 1. Utilize deciduous trees for summer shade and winter sun 2. Orient active living spaces to the south. 3. Design building overhangs to shield the high summer sun and expose the area to the lower winter sun. Q: \Tovmhomes\M FamilyDesGuide. doc _ 6 _ March 3, 2007 35 36 Crime Prevention V. Employ the Concept of Defensible Space to reduce opportunities for crime. "Defensible space" is a term used to describe a series of physical design characteristics that maximizes resident control of behavior -- particularly crime. A residential development designed under defensible space guidelines clearly defines all areas as either public, semi - private or private. In so doing, it determines who has the right to be in each space, and allows residents to be confident in responding to any questionable activity or persons within their complex. Residents are thus encouraged to extend their private realms, establish their zone of influence which inevitably results in a heightened sense of responsibility towards the care and maintenance of these outdoor areas. W. The following series of techniques can be used to create defensible space and consequently reduce crime. They are summarized in: • Defining zones of privacy (public, semi- private, private) with real or symbolic barriers. This allows residents to identify "strangers ". • Establishing perceived zones of influence (allowing residents to extend their private realms). • Providing surveillance opportunities. Additional design considerations include the following: • Orient windows so that areas vulnerable to crime can be easily surveyed by residents. • Locate mailboxes, garbage collection enclosures and common play areas in such a way that they are easily observed by others. Mailboxes should not be located in dark alcoves out of sight • Establish a system for identifying the location of each residential unit and common facilities at the project entry. • Lighting. More light is not necessarily indicative of better and safer lighting. Lighting levels should be carefully selected and oriented so that areas vulnerable to crime are accented. Provide lighting in areas of heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in areas which are dangerous if unlit, such as stairs and ramps, intersections or where abrupt changes in grade occur. Areas that have high crime potential should be well lighted so that people traveling through them at night may feel secure. • Locate plant materials such as high shrubs so that surveillance of semi - public and semi- private areas is not blocked. This will provide the opportunity for crime. • Use visually open fencing materials such as wrought iron bars or wooden pickets to define space between the street and building. X. Sticker shrubs may discourage crime activities. Low shrubs and umbrella trees (where the canopy is maintained above 5 feet from the ground) will allow surveillance opportunities, hence reducing the potential for criminal behavior. Q: \Townhomes\MFamilyDes Guide.doc -7_ March3,2007 II. BUILDING DESIGN Neighborhood Compatibility A Minimize the appearance of building scale differences between proposed townhouses and existing neighborhood residential units that conform to current zoning. Portions of multi - family developments adjoining areas zoned for single family should maintain a scale, facade and orientation similar to single family uses for compatibility with existing structures. A project site plan and cross - sections should show the footprint of all adjacent structures within 100 feet of the property line to help evaluate compatibility. 4 Fig. 7: Incorporation of elements from neighboring structures into townhouse design. B. Reflect the architectural character of neighboring residences (within 300' on the same street) where it provides a positive example through use of related building features including scale /mass, height, the proportions of entries, windows and other openings (fenestration), color, materials, and shapes. 1. Step the roof on the building perimeter segments to transition between a proposed taller building and an existing residential structure. 2. Replicate or approximate roof forms and pitch found on existing residential structures in the neighborhood. 3. Use window patterns and proportions similar to those on existing residential structures in the neighborhood. 4. Use building facade materials similar to those used on existing residential buildings in the neighborhood. 5. Maintain a consistent relationship to the street (i.e., building setbacks and entryways) as existing buildings. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc _ g _ March 3, 2007 37 38 - Offsets, changes in materials, and other fine detailing are used to provide architectural interest. • . - Q: Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc ,-- Pitched roofs, building modulation and iruirrus oi se rd,c1 insroduar a single family \ scar la this dthisi budding 1 Fig. 8: Detailing and modulation are used to reduce the scale of the building. A trellised airy provides sauawal \ iinsision from petits:don cnr'irontrunl to buLiding dads and haps Separelt pisblis from semi-private protect space= J141 - — • - - 9 - March 3, 2007 Building Entrances C. Avoid the use of exterior stairways to second stories that are visible from the street. Fig. 9: Relationship of entry to street level. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 10 - March 3, 2007 39 40 D. Townhouse units shall have an individual entrance, with entrance vestibules, canopies or porches to give identity to each unit and provide weather protection. The main entrance to units adjacent to a public street shall be accessed from and face the street. Building Elevations Fig. 10 : Individual entry porch. E. Attached townhouses shall read as a unified building mass, maintaining a common architectural language across the entire length of units. This mass shall be varied by changes in unit orientation, color /material variations, shifts in roof profile, and variation at corner units. Windows, bays, balconies, and other articulation could also be used to express the individuality of each unit. F. Each building shall incorporate treatments that "complete" the end and comer units, including: 1. an extended base or ground floor units 2. a protrusion, porch or bay that wraps the corner, or 3. an embedded comer tower � +yy ! l'� � L 4 7 'S N . �- .irva�... " .�m.t✓" cG. Fig. 11: Expressing individual units through modulation and roof forms. Q:1Townhomes\MFarnilyDesGuide. doc March 3, 2007 G. A 3 -story blank wall, even if at the narrow end of a building, does not reflect acceptable design quality. Use architectural relief and fine detailing to break up monotonous surfaces. H. Avoid applied ornamentation which is not related to building structure or architectural design. This would include arbitrary, inconsistent forms and decoration; uninterrupted floating horizontal elements; and large blank surfaces. Windows I. Provide relief, detail, and visual rhythm on the facade with well - proportioned windows. 1. Use window pattems, proportions, and orientation consistent with neighboring residences. 2. Use multiple -pane windows. 3. Provide windows that are designed to create shadows (either deeply recessed or protruding). 4. Use visually significant window elements (i.e. frame dimensions, lintels, casings, sills, and trim. 5. Locate windows so that the occupants from one residence cannot look directly into an adjacent residence. Fig. 12: Window form examples. Roofline J. Vary the roofline along the building length to reflect individual units. This can be achieved using: - separate roof forms - a combination of roof types, such as shed, gabled and hipped roofs) - gables and dormers K. Pitched and continuous sloping roof forms are encouraged. Flat roofs shall be discouraged. Where flat roofs are used, they should be detailed with parapets or roof overhangs, and detailed with brackets, corbels or other decorative supports. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 12 _ March 3, 2007 41 42 Fig. 13: Roof form variation. Building Massing L. More prominent sites and buildings require a higher level of design quality. This would include projects which are located near hill tops or intersections, or which include large visible building masses. M. Use building and roof modulation and articulation to reduce the appearance of large building masses. 1. Modulate the building facade with features such as porches, balconies, building wall relief, and bay windows. 2. Provide roof elements such as gables, eyebrow roof forms or dormers. 3. Incorporate prominent cornice, soffit, or fascia details that emphasize the top of the building. 4. Provide prominent roof overhangs. 5. Articulate the roof with rafter tails and brackets. Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 13 - Fig. 14 Differentiation of individual units through building and roof modulation to reduce the appearance of large building masses. March 3, 2007 Material and Colors N. Construct building exteriors of durable and maintainable materials that are attractive even when viewed up close. Use building materials that have texture, pattern, or lend themselves to a high quality of detailing. Appropriate materials are horizontal lap siding, shingles, brick, stone, stucco, ceramic or terra cotta tile. 0. Use a variety of complementary colors on building exteriors. Reserve brightly saturated colors for accent or trim features. Garage Design P. Design garages and carports so that they do not dominate the dwelling's facade. 1. Locate garages and carports behind residences, stepped back from the building's street facade, or provide a side entry (perpendicular to the street). 2. Design driveways to be as narrow as possible and/or shared where possible to minimize impervious surface and to minimize disruption of the sidewalk and planting strip by curb cuts. 3. Incorporate windows into garage sidewall whenever they face the street so that they appear to contain habitable space. 4. Incorporate garage door elements which reduce the apparent size of the doors, such as panels and windows. 5. Use materials and colors that match the residence. Fig. 15: Side entry garage with windows. Q: \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide. doc - 14 - March 3, 2007 43 44 III. LANDSCAPE /SITE TREATMENT Landscape Design A. Plants can be used to curtail erosion, to soften the built environment, define or emphasize open space, give privacy, block wind and lessen the effects of solar radiation. B. Although the landscape plan should reflect plants at maturity, landscaping should be considered as a design element harmonizing site plans and building design only to the extent of its effect in five years. This could mean using significantly larger initial plant stock for those project designs which rely heavily upon landscaping to provide relief for building and site design or screen the project. C. Select and site landscape materials to produce a hardy and drought- resistant landscape area consistent with project design. Selection should include consideration of soil type and depth, spacing, exposure to sun and wind, slope and contours of the site, building walls and overhangs, and compatibility of new plant material with existing vegetation to be preserved on the site. D. Install all plant materials to current nursery industry standards. Landscape plant material should be properly guyed and staked to current industry standards. Planting of trees in compacted soils is prohibited unless minimum 12 inch gravel drain sumps are installed under each tree to a minimum of 36 inch depth, or the subgrade soil beyond the planting pit is rototilled to a 9 inch depth to the drip line or edge of planter, whichever is less. E. Plant shrubs used to define spaces or separate environments as a staggered double row whenever possible. This provides the significant depth especially necessary to separate environments such as parking areas from grassed fields and building entries. F. Limit shrub beds to a maximum of two feet wide per typical row of nursery stock plants, in order to minimize barked area and maximize live ground cover. A typical five foot wide barked planting bed for a single row of shrubs is not acceptable. Protection of Existing Trees G. The survival and general health of a tree depends as much on the condition of its root system as it does on the factors influencing the above - ground portion. This vital root system extends out to, and sometimes beyond the tree's drip line (the outermost reach of branches). Any significant disturbance to the root area, such as high surface compaction, root severing, over - watering and/or removal of organic material in which the tree has composted over several years, will almost certainly kill the tree. Tree removal and replacement would be required after a few seasons of progressive deterioration. H. Protect significant trees during construction with a chain -link fence or plastic vinyl construction fence at the drip line. Install the protection fence prior to issuance of grading permit. Removal or destruction of fencing should be cause for a Stop Work Order until reviewed by City staff. Q:1Townhomes\M Fami lyDesGuide.doc - 15 - March 3, 2007 Fig. 16: Tree protected with a chain link fence at the drip line during construction. Design for Screening and Separation I. Full privacy requires an opaque fence or evergreen barrier at least six feet high or above eye level, depending on the angle of view. Noise reduction requires a dense fence (i.e., concrete /masonry) wall or berm in addition to plantings. J. Area separation requires a continuous physical barrier not less than three feet high. A greater degree of separation would require a higher opaque barrier. A separation planting strip could be deciduous or evergreen. K. Provide a privacy fence along side and rear yards if adjoining single family zoning. This should be 6 feet high sight - obscuring wood (or equivalent) fence with exterior materials and colors consistent with building architecture. Outdoor Space Design L. Outdoor space tends to be unusable when it is simply the "leftovers" after buildings are placed on the land. Outdoor spaces should have a definite functional shape, be internally designed to fulfill that function, and be functionally associated with a specific unit or unit group (see "Defensible Space" in Site Plan guidelines). M. Complexes with 10 or more units must provide an on -site recreation space for children with at least one area designed for children aged 5 -12, see TMC 18.52.060. This area should be characterized by interactive group equipment which tests skills. The Parks and Recreation Director should be consulted in the review of acceptable design proposals. N. The child play area should reflect the design elements below: 1. Visually accessible to casual surveillance by passersby and residents. This is a key element in facility safety and generally requires a central location. Q: \Townhomes\MFami]yDesGuid e.doc - ] 6 - March 3, 2007 45 46 2. Provide separation of play areas from general passersby for security. 3. Easy safe access from residence to play area(s) 4. Hard surface areas for wheeled toys and tricycles. 5. Equipment with zones to satisfy the specific sensory and skill needs up to age 12. 6. Use water and sand if limited to two materials. These provide more possibilities for play and fun than all asphalt deserts combined. The ability to move over, under, around or through something.affords a child control. He can change his relationship to it. 7. A child should be able to control his level of involvement with others. Make small sheltered areas for solitary play, larger spaces .for group play. 8. An adjacent sitting area for monitoring the children. Q :1Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc Fig. 17: A recreation space for the 5 -12 year old group which facilitates group interaction and skill testing. 0. Linkages with existing public trail and park facilities should be made where possible, either through immediate construction or agreement to jointly participate in the coordinated provision of such a linkage at a later date. IV. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES /STREET FURNITURE Lighting A. Reflect project architectural design considerations in all exterior lighting (i.e., distribution, intensity, and pattern). B. Maximum parking area light standard height is 20 feet or the height of the building; whichever is less. _ 17 _ March 3, 2007 Fig. 18: Parking lot lighting. C. Maximum walkway and grounds lighting is 15 feet. Light fixture height is limited to enhance a sense of scale and enclosure for common areas at night. D. Provide all lighting standards with glare cut -off features to avoid off -site spill -over. E. Place fixtures so that light patterns overlap at a height of 7 feet which is sufficiently high to vertically illuminate a person's body. F. At hazardous locations, such as changes of grade, use lower level supplemental lighting or additional overhead units. Where low -level lighting (below 5 feet) is used, fixtures should be placed in such a way that they do not produce glare. Most eye levels occur between 3 feet 8 inches for wheelchair users and 6 feet for standing adults. G. Where walkway lighting is provided primarily by low fixtures provide sufficient peripheral lighting to illuminate the immediate surroundings. Peripheral lighting contributes to a feeling of security in an individual because he can see into his surroundings to determine whether or not passage through an area is safe. Such an area should be lighted so that the object or person may be seen directly or in silhouette. Fencing, Walls, and Screening H. All fencing, walls, and screening should reflect building architecture and be harmonious with adjacent project designs. This includes consideration of proportion, color, texture, and materials. Design perimeter fencing to be attractive from both sides. Service Areas I. Screen all exterior maintenance equipment, including HVAC equipment, electrical equipment, storage tanks, satellite dishes, and garbage dumpsters from off -site and on -site common area view in an architecturally integrated manner. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 18 _ March 3, 2007 47 48 b , Jae • r 'a ` sae } l � ■ _ ' imaramummor .C1 V&A rs . v .,. •,„. • e' . . . .. 1 - Fig. 19: Dumpsters are sited and screened to minimize prominence. J. Several small dumpsters adjacent to buildings such as garages are preferable to a single large free standing site. Dumpsters should have solid architectural wall screening only to the container height to minimize its prominence. 0 M Minim um Garbage pickup area for new development Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc Garbage Pinup Area I E i I f I�[ Fig. 20: Garbage collection area screened from public street. K. Recycling containers and areas should conform to King County standards or as amended by Tukwila standards. Street Furniture L. Carry out the project's design concept with the choice of street furniture. M. Foster opportunities for social gathering by residents in shared open spaces by the provision of seating and other amenities. Separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian- oriented areas with the use of bollards and other barrier features. - 19 - March 3, 2007 City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17, "SUBDIVISION CODE," AND TITLE 18, "ZONING CODE," TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF ZERO- LOT -LINE / FEE- SIMPLE TOWNHOUSES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN ht.rt;CTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila's Zoning and Subdivision Codes do not specifically list zero-lot -line townhouses as a permitted use, and the development standards in the multi- family zones are not conducive to a townhouse type of development; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to allow attached and detached zero-lot -line townhouses as another type of ownership housing in Tukwila's multi- family zones; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to expand the choices for development in the multi- family zones, from condominiums and apartments to attached and detached zero-lot -line townhouses; and WHEREAS, after three townhouse projects are built under the regulations established by this ordinance, the City Council wishes staff to prepare a report, to evaluate the quality of development; to determine if any additional changes are necessary; and whether to continue to allow townhouses in the multi- family zones; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2007, November 8, 2007, and December 13, 2007, the Tukwila Planning Commission, following adequate public notice, held public hearings to receive testimony concerning amendments of the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code to allow townhouses, and, on December 13, 2007, adopted a motion recommending the proposed changes; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2007, the Tukwila City Council, following adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the recommendations of the Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance 1833 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 17.12.010, is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.12.010 Scope Any land being divided into nine or fewer parcels, lots, unit lots, tracts or sites for the purpose of sale, lease, or gift, any one of which is less than 20 acres in size, shall meet the requirements of this chapter. Section 2. New regulations regarding Unit Lot Subdivisions are hereby added to TMC Chapter 17.12, "Detailed Procedures for Short Subdivisions," to read as follows: 17.12.070 Unit lot short plats A. Sites developed or proposed to be developed with townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, or zero-lot -line units may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. Any private, usable open space C:1Documents and Settings All Users \ Desktop \Kelly\MSDATA\Ordinances\Zero Lot Line Zoning.doc MD:ksn 2R82008 Page 1 of 13 49 50 for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit that it serves. B. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. C. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common play areas), and other similar features, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. D. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. E. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot, shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. Construction of townhouse dwelling foundations may commence prior to final short plat approval, provided: 1. The proposed short plat has received preliminary approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed to assure construction of required public improvements; 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor impair City enforcement of, conditions of subdivision approval; 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued, until final short plat approval is granted. Section 3. Ordinance 1833 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 17.14.010, is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.14.010 Scope Any land being divided into ten or more parcels, lots, unit lots, tracts or sites, for the purpose of sale or gift, any one of which is less than 20 acres in size, or any land which has been divided under the short subdivision procedures within five years and is not eligible for further short platting, pursuant to Section 17.12.010, shall conform to the procedures and requirements of this chapter. Section 4. New regulations regarding unit lot subdivisions are hereby added to TMC Chapter 17.14, "Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions," to read as follows: 17.14.060 Unit lot subdivisions A. Sites developed or proposed to be developed with townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, or zero - lot -line units may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. Any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. B. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. C. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common play areas), and other similar features, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. D. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. C:1Documents and Settings\All Users \ Desk top\Kelly\MSDATMOrdinanca\Zcro Lot Line Zoning.doc MD:ksn 2/28/2008 Page 2 of 13 E. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot, shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. Construction of townhouse dwelling foundations may commence prior to final plat approval, provided: 1. The proposed plat has received preliminary approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed to assure construction of required public improvements; 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor impair City enforcement of conditions of, subdivision approval; 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued, until final plat approval is granted. Section 5. A new definition for "Detached Zero- Lot -Line Units" is hereby added to TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," to read as follows: Detached Zero Lot Line Units A development pattern of detached dwelling units constructed immediately adjacent to one side lot line (i.e. no side yard setback), coupled with an easement on the adjacent lot in order to maintain separation between structures. The easement will provide access rights for maintenance purposes, and help preserve privacy and usable yard space. Section 6. A new definition for "Lot, Parent" is hereby added to TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," to read as follows: Lot, Parent "Lot, parent" means the initial lot from which unit lots are subdivided for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, zero - lot -line units, or any combination of the above types of residential development. Section 7. A new definition for "Lot, Unit" is hereby added to TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," to read as follows: Lot, Unit "Lot, unit" means one of the individual lots created from the subdivision of a parent lot for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, zero -lot- line units, or any combination of the above types of residential development. Section 8. A new definition for "Townhouse" is hereby added to TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," to read as follows: Townhouse "Townhouse" means a form of ground- related housing in which individual dwelling units are attached along at least one common wall to at least one other dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit occupies space from the ground to the roof and has direct access to private open space. No portion of a unit may occupy space above or below another unit, except that townhouse units may be constructed over a common shared parking garage, provided the garage is underground. Section 9. Ordinance 1834 §2 (part), as codified at TMC 18.06.768, is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.06.768 Short Subdivision "Short subdivision" means the division of land into nine or less lots, unit lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions. Section 10. Ordinance 1834 §2 (part), as codified at TMC 18.06.813, is hereby amended to read as follows: C: \Documents and Settings\ All Users \ Desktop \Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinanccs\Zero lot Line Zoning.doc MD:ksn 21282008 Page 3 of 13 51 Lot area, minimum 8,000 sq. ft. (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Lot area per unit (multi- family) 3,000 sq. ft. (For townhouses the density shall be calculated based on one unit per 3000 sq. ft. of parent lot area. The "unit lot" area shall be allowed to include the common access easements). Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Setbacks, minimum: Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front - 1st floor 15 feet • Front - 2nd floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Second front - 1st floor 7.5 feet • Second front - 2nd floor 10 feet • Second front - 3rd floor 15 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Sides - 1st floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Sides - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear -1st floor 10 feet 52 18.06.813 Subdivision "Subdivision" means the division or redivision of land into ten or more lots, unit lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions. Section 11. Ordinance Nos. 1976 §20, 1865 §9, and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.12.020, are hereby amended to read as follows: 18.12.020 Permitted Uses A. The following uses are permitted outright within the Medium Density District, subject to compliance with all other applicable requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code: 1. Dwelling - One detached single - family dwelling per lot. 2. Dwelling - Multi- family duplex, triplex, or fourplex units or townhouse up to four attached units. 3. Detached zero - lot -line units. 4. Animal veterinary, including associated temporary indoor boarding; access to an arterial required. 5. Day care centers. 6. Public parks, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds, but not including amusement parks, golf courses, or commercial recreation. 7. Shelters. B. In Commercial Redevelopment Areas 1, 2, and 4 (see Figures 18 -9 or 18 -10), the uses and development standards of the adjacent commercial zone are permitted and shall apply, subject to the specific criteria and procedures defined in TMC 18.60.060. Section 12. Ordinance Nos. 1976 §23, and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.12.070, are hereby amended to read as follows; 18.12.070 Basic Development Standards Development within the Medium Density Residential District shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: MDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS C:\Documents and Settings■All Users \ Desktop \Ketly\MSDATA \Ordinances\Zero Lot Line Zoning.doc MD:ksn 7128(2008 Page 4 of 13 • Rear - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) Townhouse building separation, minimum • 1 and 2 story buildings 10 feet • 3 stony buildings 20 feet Height, maximum 30 feet Landscape requirements (minimum): See Landscape, Recreation, Recycling/Solid Waste Space requirements chapter for further requirements Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front(s) 15 feet • Sides 10 feet • Rear 10 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum (75% for townhouses) Recreation space 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. • min) Off - street parking: • Residential See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off -street Parking & Loading Regulations. • Accessory dwelling unit See Accessory Use section of this chapter • Other uses See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off -street Parking & Loading Regulations Section 13. Ordinance Nos. 1976 §24, 1865 §13, 1830 §2, and 1758 51 (part), as codified at TMC 18.14.070, are hereby amended to read as follows: 18.14.020 Permitted Uses A. The following uses are permitted outright within the High- Density Residential District, subject to compliance with all other applicable requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 1. Animal veterinary, including associated temporary indoor boarding; access to an arterial required. 2. Convalescent and nursing homes for not more than 12 patients. 3. Day care centers. 4. Manufactured /mobile home park, meeting the following requirements: a. the development site shall comprise not less than two contiguous b. overall development density shall not exceed eight dwelling units per c. vehicular access to individual dwelling units shall be from the interior of the park; and d. emergency access shall be subject to the approval of the Tukwila Fire Department. 5. Dwelling - One detached single - family dwelling per lot. 6. Dwelling - multi- family. 7. Dwelling - townhouse up to four attached units. 8. Libraries, museums or art galleries (public). 9. Parks, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds (public) but not including amusement parks, golf courses, or commercial recreation. 10. Shelters. acres; acre; C: \Documents and Settings All Uscrs\ Desk top\Kclly\MSDATA \Ordinances\Zero Lot Line Zoning.doc MD:ksn 2/28/2008 Page 5 of 13 53 Lot area, minimum 9,600 sq. ft. (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Lot area per unit (multi- family, except senior citizen housing) 2,000 sq. ft. (For townhouses the density shall be calculated based on one unit per 2000 sq. ft. of parent lot area. The "unit lot" area shall be allowed to include the common access easements). Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Setbacks, minimum Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front - 1st floor 15 feet • Front - 2nd floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Front - 4th floor 45 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Second front - 1st floor 7.5 feet • Second front - 2nd floor 10 feet • Second front - 3rd floor 15 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Second front - 4th floor 22.5 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Sides - 1st floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Sides - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Sides - 4th floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 1st floor 10 feet • Rear - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 4th floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) Townhouse building separation, minimum • 1 and 2 stony buildings 10 feet • 3 and 4 story buildings 20 feet Height, maximum 45 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum (except senior citizen housing), (75% for townhouses) 54 B. In Commercial Redevelopment Area 3 (see Figures 18 -9 or 18 -10), the uses and development standards of the adjacent commercial zone are permitted and shall apply, subject to the specific criteria and procedures defined in the BAR chapter of this code, TMC 18.60.060. Section 14. Ordinance Nos. 1976 §27, 1830 §3, and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.14.070, are hereby amended to read as follows: 18.14.070 Basic Development Standards Development within the High Density Residential District shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: HDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS C:\Documents and SettingslAli Users \Desktop\Kelly\MSDATA \OrdinnTW S\Z ro Lot Line Zoning.doc MD:ksn 228200& Page 6 of13 Landscape requirements (minimum): See Landscape, Recreation, Recycling/Solid Waste Space requirements chapter for further requirements Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front(s) 15 feet • Sides 10 feet • Rear 10 feet Recreation space 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. min.) Recreation space, senior citizen housing 100 sq. ft. per dwelling unit Off -street parking: • Residential (except senior citizen housing) See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off -street Parking & Loading Regulations. • Accessory dwelling unit See Accessory Use section of this chapter • Other uses, including senior citizen housing See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off-street Parking & Loading Regulations Performance Standards: Use, activity and operations within a structure or a site shall comply with (1) standards adopted by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency for odor, dust, smoke and other airborne pollutants, (2) TMC Chapter 8.22, "Noise ", and, (3) adopted State and Federal standards for water quality and hazardous materials. In addition, all development subject to the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C, shall be evaluated to determine whether adverse environmental impacts have been adequately mitigated. Section 15. Ordinance 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.50.070, is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.50.070 Yard Regulations A. Fences, walls, poles, posts, and other customary yard accessories, ornaments, furniture may be permitted in any yard subject to height limitations and requirements limiting obstruction of visibility to the detriment of public safety. The height of opaque fences along street frontages is limited to 4 feet, with lattice or other open material allowed up to 6 feet. B. In the case of through lots, unless the prevailing front yard pattern on adjoining lots indicates otherwise, front yards shall be provided on all frontages. C. Where the front yard that would normally be required on a lot is not in keeping with the prevailing yard pattern, the DCD may waive the requirement for the normal front yard and substitute therefore a special yard requirement, which shall not exceed the average of the yards provided on adjacent lots. D. In the case of corner lots, a front yard of the required depth shall be provided in accordance with the prevailing yard pattern, and a second front yard of half the depth required generally for front yards in the district shall be provided on the other frontage. E. In the case of corner lots with more than two frontages, the DCD shall determine the front yard requirements, subject to the following conditions: 1. At least one front yard shall be provided having the full depth required generally in the district; 2. The second front yard shall be the minimum set forth in the district; 3. In the case of through lots and corner lots, there will be no rear yards but only front and side yards; 4. In the case of through lots, side yards shall extend from the rear lines of front yards required. In the case of corner lots, yards remaining after full and half depth front yards have been established shall be considered side yards. (See Figure 18-4.) Section 16. Ordinance 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.50.083, is hereby amended to read as follows: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\ Desktop \Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinances\Zero Lot Line Zoning.doc MD:ksn 228/2008 Page 7of13 55 For all buildings except as described below: MDR.....50 ft HDR 50 ft Maximum building length with bonus for modulating off -sets: For structures with a maximum building height of 2 stories or 25 ft., whichever is less, and having horizontal modulation or a minimum vertical change in roof profile of 4 feet at least every two units or MDR 100 ft HDR 200 ft 50 feet, whichever is less: For structures with a building height over 2 stories or 25 ft., whichever is less, with a horizontal and vertical modulation of 4 ft. or an 8 ft. modulation in either direction: MDR 100 ft HDR 200 ft For townhouse structures with horizontal modulation or a minimum MDR 80 ft vertical change in roof profile of 4 feet at least every two units or HDR....125 ft 50 feet, whichever is less: 56 18.50.083 Maximum Building Length In the MDR and HDR zones, the maximum building length shall be as follows: Modulation shall be required for every 2 units or 50 feet, whichever is less, as measured along the building's length Grouping of offsets in maximum four unit modules may be permitted only with BAR approval (see Figure 18 -5). Section 17. Ordinance Nos. 1930 §28 and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.50.085, are hereby amended to read as follows: 18.50.085 Maximum Percent Development Area Coverage In the MDR and HDR zones the maximum percent development area coverage shall be 50 %, except for senior citizen housing developments in HDR. If the senior citizen housing is converted to regular apartments, the 50% limit must be met. Townhouse developments are allowed up to a maximum of 75% development area coverage. The Director shall allow this increase from 50% to 75% if the applicant uses low impact development techniques, provided the site allows for such measures and the drainage design meets all adopted codes. Section 18. Ordinance 1872 §14 (part), as codified at TMC 18.52.060, is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.52.060 Recreation Space Requirements In all MDR and HDR zoning districts, any proposed multiple - family structure, complex or development shall provide on the premises and for the use of the occupants a minimum amount of recreation space according to the following provisions: 1. Required Area. a. For each proposed dwelling unit in the multiple- family development and detached zero-lot -line type of development, a minimum of 400 square feet (100 square feet for senior citizen housing) of recreation space shall be provided. Any multiple- family structure, complex or development shall provide a minimum of 1,000 square feet of total recreation space. b. Townhouse units shall provide at least 250 square feet of the 400 square feet of recreation space as private, ground level open space measuring not less than 10 feet in any dimension c. The front, side and rear yard setback areas required by the applicable zoning district shall not qualify as recreation space. However, these setback areas can qualify as recreation space for townhouses if they are incorporated into private open space with a minimum dimension of ten feet on all sides. 2. Indoor or Covered Space. C:\Documents and Settings AD Usca\ Desk topTelly\MSDATA \Ordinances\Zero Lot Line Zoning.doc MD:ksn 2/28/2008 Page 8 of13 a. No more than 50% of the required recreation space may be indoor or covered space in standard multi- family developments. Senior citizen housing must have at least 20% indoor or covered space. b. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of extensively improved indoor recreation space provided. Interior facility improvements would include a full range of weight machines, sauna, hot tub, large screen television and the like. 3. Uncovered Space. a. A minimum of 50% of the total required recreation space shall be open or uncovered, up to 100% of the total requirement may be in open or uncovered recreation space in standard multi- family developments. Senior citizen housing allows up to 80% of recreation space to be outdoors and has no minimum outdoor space requirement. b. Recreation space shall not exceed a 4% slope in any direction unless it is determined that the proposed space design clearly facilitates and encourages the anticipated use as endorsed by the Director. c. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum credit of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of outdoor pool and surrounding deck area. 4. General Requirements. a. Multiple - family complexes (except senior citizen housing, detached zero-lot -line and townhouses with nine or fewer units), which provide dwelling units with two or more bedrooms, shall provide adequate recreation space for children with at least one space for the 5 -to-12- year -old group. Such space shall be at least 25% but not more than 50% of the total recreation space required under TMC 18.52.060.1, and shall be designated, located and maintained in a safe condition. b. Adequate fencing, plant screening, or other buffer shall separate the recreation space from parking areas, driveways or public streets. c. The anticipated use of all required recreation areas shall be specified and designed to clearly accommodate that use. Section 19. Ordinance 1976 §62, as codified at TMC 18.56.065, is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.56.065 Residential Parking Requirements A. Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit which contains up to three bedrooms. One additional off-street parking space shall be required for every two bedrooms in excess of three bedrooms in a dwelling unit (i.e., four and five bedroom dwelling units shall have three off-street parking spaces, six and seven bedroom homes shall have four spaces, and so on). B. Each unit in a townhouse development shall have an attached garage with parking for at least one vehide or a parking space in an underground garage. C. The Director shall have the discretion to waive the requirement to construct a portion of the off -street parking requirement if, based on a parking demand study, the property owner establishes that the dwelling will be used primarily to house residents who do not and will not drive due to a factor other than age. Such a study shall assure that ample parking is provided for residents who cart drive, guests, caregivers and other persons who work at the residence. If such a waiver is granted, the property owner shall provide a site plan, which demonstrates that in the event of a change of use, which eliminates the reason for the waiver, there is ample room on the site to provide the number of off -street parking spaces required by this Code. In the event that a change of use or type of occupant is proposed that would alter the potential number of drivers living or working at the dwelling, the application for change of use shall be C :\Documents and Settings \All Users\ Deslttop \Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinances\Zero Lot Line Zoning.doc MD :k n 2/282008 Page 9 of 13 57 58 conditioned on construction of any additional off -street parking spaces required to meet the standards of this Code. Section 20. Ordinance Nos. 1986 §16, 1865 §51, and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.60.050, are hereby amended to read as follows: 18.60.050 Design Review Criteria A. Generally. The BAR is authorized to request and rely upon any document, guideline, or other consideration it deems relevant or useful to satisfy the purpose and objectives of this chapter, specifically including but not limited to the following criteria. The applicant shall bear the full burden of proof that the proposed development plans satisfy all of the criteria. The BAR may modify a literal interpretation of the design review criteria if, in their judgment such modifications better implement the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. B. Commercial and Light Industrial Design Review Criteria. The following criteria shall be considered in all cases, except that multi- family, hotel or motel developments, outside of the Tukwila International Boulevard corridor, shall use the multi - family, hotel and motel design review criteria, and developments within the MUO, NCC and RC Districts of the Tukwila International Boulevard corridor (see Figure 18 -9) shall use the Tukwila International Boulevard design review criteria of this chapter instead: 1. RELATIONSHIP OF $ i i UCTURE TO SITE. a. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement. b. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. c. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site. 2. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA. a. Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged. b. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. c. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. e. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. 3. LANDSCAPING AND SITE TREATMENT. a. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized, preserved and enhanced. b. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. c. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. d. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. e. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. f. Screening of service yards, and other places that tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combination. C:\Documcnts and SettingsWO Users \ Desktop UKWly\MSDATA\OrdinaneaNZero Lot Line Zoning.doc MD:ksn 2/292009 Page 10 of 13 g. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls and pavings of wood, brick, stone or gravel may be used. h. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. 4. BUILDING DESIGN. a. Architectural style is not restricted; evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to its surroundings. b. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. c. Building components such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. d. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. e. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. f. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. g. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest. 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE. a. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. b. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. C. Multi- Family, Hotel and Motel Design Review Criteria. In reviewing any multi- family, hotel or motel application the following criteria shall be used by the BAR in its decision making as well as the Multi- Family Design Manual or Townhouse Design Manual. Detached zero - lot -line type of developments shall be subject to Townhouse Design Manual. 1. SITE PLANNING. a. Building siting, architecture, and landscaping shall be integrated into and blend harmoniously with the neighborhood building scale, natural environment, and development characteristics as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. For instance, a multi- family development's design need not be harmoniously integrated with adjacent single- family structures if that existing single - family use is designated as "Commercial" or "High Density Residential" in the Comprehensive Plan. However, a "Low Density Residential" (detached single - family) designation would require such harmonious design integration. b. Natural features, which contribute to desirable neighborhood character, shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Natural features include, but are not limited to, existing significant trees and stands of trees, wetlands, streams, and significant topographic features. c. The site plan shall use landscaping and building shapes to form an aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian scale streetscape. This shall include, but not be limited to facilitating pedestrian travel along the street, using architecture and landscaping to provide a desirable transition from streetscape to the building, and C: \Documents and Settings\AII Users \ Desktop \Kelly\MSDATA\Ordinances\Zero Lot Line Zoning.doc MD:ksn 2/282008 Page 11 of 13 59 60 providing an integrated linkage from pedestrian and vehicular facilities to building entries. d. Pedestrian and vehicular entries shall provide a high quality visual focus using building siting, shapes, and landscaping. Such a feature establishes a physical transition between the project and public areas, and establishes the initial sense of high quality development. e. Vehicular circulation design shall minimize driveway intersections with the street. f. Site perimeter design (i.e. landscaping, structures, and horizontal width) shall be coordinated with site development to ensure a harmonious transition between adjacent projects. g. Varying degrees of privacy for the individual residents shall be provided; increasing from the public right -of -way, to common areas, to individual residences. This can be accomplished through the use of symbolic and actual physical barriers to define the degrees of privacy appropriate to specific site area functions. h. Parking and service areas shall be located, designed, and screened to interrupt and reduce the visual impact of large paved areas. i. The height, bulk, footprint, and scale of each building shall be in harmony with its site and adjacent long -term structures. 2. BUILDING DESIGN. a. Architectural style is not restricted; evaluation of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and its ability to harmonize building texture, shape, lines and mass with the surrounding neighborhood. b. Buildings shall be of appropriate height, scale, and design /shape to be in harmony with those existing permanent neighboring developments which are consistent with, or envisioned in, the Comprehensive Plan. This will be especially important for perimeter structures. Adjacent structures that are not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan should be considered to be transitional. The degree of architectural harmony required should be consistent with the nonconforming structure's anticipated permanence. c. Building components, such as windows, doors, eaves, parapets, stairs and decks shall be integrated into the overall building design. Particular emphasis shall be given to harmonious proportions of these components with those of adjacent developments. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with the anticipated life of the structure. d. The overall color scheme shall work to reduce building prominence and shall blend in with the natural environment. e. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting shall be used to provide visual interest. Otherwise monotonous flat walls and uniform vertical planes of individual buildings shall be broken up with building modulation, stairs, decks, railings, and focal entries. Multiple building developments shall use siting and additional architectural variety to avoid inappropriate repetition of building designs and appearance to surrounding properties. 3. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT. a. Existing natural topographic patterns and significant vegetation shall be reflected in project design when they contribute to the natural beauty of the area or are important to defining neighborhood identity or a sense of place. b. Landscape treatment shall enhance existing natural and architectural features, help separate public from private spaces, strengthen vistas and important C\Documents and Settings'All Users 'Desktop\ cIly\MSDATA \OrdinancelZcro Lot Line Zoning.doc MD:ksn 2/28/2008 Page 12 of 13 views, provide shade to moderate the affects of large paved areas, and break up visual mass. c. Walkways, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas shall promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Direct pedestrian linkages to the public street, to on -site recreation areas, and to adjacent public recreation areas shall be provided. d. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties shall be provided. 4. MISCELLANEOUS 51 RUCTURES. a. Miscellaneous structures shall be designed as an integral part of the architectural concept and landscape. Materials shall be compatible with buildings, scale shall be appropriate, colors shall be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and structure proportions shall be to scale. b. The use of walls, fencing, planting, berms, or combinations of these shall accomplish screening of service yards and other places that tend to be unsightly. Screening shall be effective in winter and summer. c. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings shall be screened from view. Screening shall be designed as an integral part of the architecture (i.e., raised parapets and fully enclosed under roof) and landscaping. d. Exterior lighting standards and fixtures shall be of a design and size consistent with safety, building architecture and adjacent area. Lighting shall be shielded and restrained in design with no off -site glare spill -over. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors shall not be used unless clearly demonstrated to be integral to building architecture. D. Tukwila International Boulevard Design Review Criteria. In reviewing any application for development, in the MUO, NCC, and RC Districts within the Tukwila International Boulevard study area (see Figure 18 -9), the design criteria and guidelines of the Tukwila International Boulevard Design Manual, as amended, shall be used by the BAR in its decision making. E. Parking Structure Design Guidelines. The Parking Structure Design Guidelines shall be used whenever the provisions of this Title require a design review decision on proposed or modified parking structures. Section 21. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 22. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2008. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney Jim Haggerton, Mayor C:\Documents and Settings\AII Us ers\ Desktop \Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinances\Zero Lot Line Zoning.doc MD:ksn 2/28/2008 Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Page 13 of 13 61 , a: i i# 4 Tukwila City Council Agenda k i . �s • COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE •❖ /f 10 �� `. / o Ji m Haggerton, Mayor Councilmembers: • Joan Hernandez • Pamela Linder to x . ' � '"�'� ' Rhonda Berry, City Administrator • Dennis Robertson • Verna Griffin 190 Joe, Duffie, Council President • Kathy Hougardy • De'Sean Quinn RECEIVED FEB 08 2008 Monday, February 11, 2008; 7:00 PM c,;.w..uNTrukwila City Hall; Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAT LOPNCNT 2. CITIZEN COMMENT At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on this agenda (please limit your comments to five minutes per citizen). To comment on an item listed on this agenda, please save your comments until the issue is presented for discussion. 3. PUBLIC HEARING Modifications to Zoning and Subdivision Codes to allow for Pg.1 zero -lot line townhouse development. 4. SPECIAL ISSUES ' a. Interlocal Agreements for grant funding for the Recycling Pg.61 Program. b. A resolution regarding the Growth and Transportation Pg.89 Efficiency Center (GTEC). c. An ordinance regarding modifications to Zoning and Pg.1 Subdivision Codes to allow for zero -lot line townhouse development. d. A resolution regarding Municipal Research and Services Pg.151 Center (MRSC) rosters for construction and consultant contracts. e. Southcenter Boulevard Water Main Replacement final ' Pg.163 settlement and budget shortfall. f. An ordinance regarding Emergency Management. Pg.169 g. Amendment #1 to Contract #03 -058 with Starfire Sports. Pg.181 5. REPORTS a. Mayor c. Staff e. Intergovernmental b. City Council d. City Attorney 6. MISCELLANEOUS 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION 8. ADJOURNMENT Reasonable to the City Clerk's Office 206 Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible. accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice - 433 1800/TDD 206 - 248 - 2933. This notice is available at www.ci.tukwila.wa.us, and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities. Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped. HOW TO TESTIFY If you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and address clearly for the record. Please observe the basic rules of courtesy when speaking and limit your comments to five minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens, but may not be able to take immediate action on comments received until they are referred to a Committee or discussed under New Business. COUNCIL MEETINGS No Council meetings are scheduled on the fifth.Monday of the month unless prior public notification is given. Regular Meetings: The Mayor, elected by the people to a four -year term, presides at all Regular Council meetings held on the first and third Mondays of each month at 7 PM. Official Council action in the form of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing of ordinances can only be taken at Regular Council meetings. Committee of the Whole Meetings: Council members are elected for a four -year term. The Council president is elected by the Council members to preside at all Committee of the Whole meetings for a one- year term. Committee of the Whole meetings are held the second and fourth Mondays at 7 PM. Issues discussed are forwarded to the Regular Council meeting for official action. GENERAL INFORMATION At each Council meeting citizens are given the opportunity to address the Council on items that are not included on the agenda during Citizen Comment. Please limit your comments to five minutes. Special Meetings may be called at any time with proper public notice. Procedures followed are the same as those used in Regular Council meetings. Executive Sessions may be called to inform the Council of pending legal action, financial or personnel matters. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action of matters affecting the public interest such as land -use laws, annexations, rezone requests, public safety issues, etc. Section 2.04.150 of the Tukwila Municipal Code states the following guidelines for Public Hearings: 1. The proponent shall speak first and is allowed 15 minutes for a presentation. 2. The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation. 3. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal. 4. Citizens who wish to address the Council may speak for 5 minutes each. No one may speak a second time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken. 5. After each speaker has spoken, the Council may question the speaker. Each speaker can respond to the question, but may not engage in further debate at this time. 6. After the Public Hearing is closed, the Council may discuss the issue among themselves without further public testimony. Council action may be taken at this time or postponed to another date. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council President Joe Duffie called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. OFFICIALS Present were Joe Duffie, Council President; Councilmembers Joan Hernandez, Pam Linder, Dennis Robertson, Verna Griffin, Kathy Hougardy, and De'Sean Quinn. ATTENDANCE Jim Haggerton, Mayor; Rhonda Berry, City Administrator; Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney (arrived mid - meeting, prior to discussion on item 4.g.); Jack Pace, Community Development Director; Minnie Dhaliwal, Acting Planning Supervisor; Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner; Maggi Lubov, CTR Coordinator; Jim Morrow, Public Works Director; Bruce Fletcher, Parks & Recreation Director; Mary Miotke, IT Manager; Kimberly Matej, Council Analyst; Barbara Saxton, Administrative Support Coordinator CITIZEN COMMENT Rhonda Berry, City Administrator, read a message from Kathy Znak, Sister City Committee Chairperson, who was ill and unable to attend the meeting. Due to increased travel costs over the original price quotes and limited hotel availability, the date for sending the City's first official delegation to Miyoshi, Japan has been postponed from April 2008 to April 2009. 2009 will mark the 30th anniversary of the City's Sister City affiliation, and will also provide a full year of fundraising opportunities for participants. PUBLIC HEARING TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL February 11, 2008 - 7:00 pm Council Chambers — City Hall Modifications to Zoning and Subdivision Codes to allow for zero -lot line townhouse development. Jack Pace, Community Development Director, stated the amendment to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes would allow for development of zero lot Tine /fee simple townhomes on individual lots. The code amendment is directed at multi - family zones and will provide an opportunity for the City to provide additional owner- occupied housing in the means of townhouses on individual zero -lot -line lots. Minnie Dhaliwal, Acting Planning Supervisor, noted the issue was discussed at the Community Affairs & Parks Committee on January 28, 2008. Medium density residential (MDR) and high density residential (HDR) zones in the City currently allow multi - family developments. The proposed code change would provide another option in the multi - family zone for townhouses. Current City codes addressing setback and other requirements were written more for larger apartment complexes. Ms. Dhaliwal used a Powerpoint presentation to show an exanNlmta townhp�us��devel2�pp MAT wil kk m own as t e �. w ,dN. Hollycrest Townhomes, which were built ing County,`ey`' eafure ta1<ac - 6 , zero- lot -line units, with u jf n &At. different floor levels shared by different dwelling units. The homeowner owns the space from the bottom to the top level. These are 2,200- to 3,100- square -foot lots; units themselves are 1,300 to 1,650 square feet. Characteristics that define a townhouse are that it is ground related housing, with individual units attached along at least one common wall, and each unit occupies space from the ground to the roof and has direct access to private open space. Other examples were shown, such as a development in Renton, which has a detached zero lot line built right up to the property line, with the neighboring home having an easement for maintenance purposes. City of Tukwila Page 2 of 10 City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes February 11, 2008 There are three basic layers to the proposed code changes: 1. Technical changes to create individual townhouse lots. (The City's current code would not allow this type of development due to setback requirements.) 2. Changes to Tukwila's bulk and coverage limitations to encourage the market to provide townhouses. 3. Adoption of specific design guidelines, as this type of development is not addressed in the current Multi - Family Design Guidelines. Changes to the Subdivision Code would involve applying the lot size to the parent lot. The mechanism for short plat and subdivision process would remain the same (preliminary approval, build infrastructure, final approval, and building permits), with the addition of the design review process. The City would allow the building foundations to be constructed prior to final approval along with the rest of the site improvements, so the lot lines may be accurately drawn through the existing common walls. Ms. Dhaliwal also explained the requirements relating to setbacks (no tiered setback), modulation (shorter building length in exchange for not increasing the modulation for 3 or 4 stories; and no more than 4 attached homes), parking requirements (two off - street parking spaces for up to three bedrooms; one parking space must be in a garage), and recreation space (relating to square footage requirements, fencing, and common open space). This information is outlined in the Townhouse Design Guidelines included in the agenda packet. 7:24:33 p.m. - Council President Duffie opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. Carl Roberts, 5141 Mill Pond Loop SE, Auburn, Washington 98092, spoke in support of the zoning change to the zero -lot -line structure. Mr. Roberts is involved in real estate and previously worked in the fields of civil engineering and planning. He feels the opportunity to own land and a home will pull people to Tukwila from other areas. Mike Overbeck, 4620 S. 148th St, Tukwila, Washington 98168, stated he is in favor of the proposal with the exception of the City's proposed landscape setback requirements, which he feels take up too much of a lot's buildable land. Mr. Overbeck provided a handout to Council outlining his recommendations and information on setbacks required by adjoining jurisdictions. The biggest problem comes with narrow lots (80 feet or less), where he would like to see the landscape requirement for side yard setback reduced from 10 feet to 5 feet. On a lot he is interested in developing, the 10 -foot requirement would mean 35% of his lot would need to be landscaped. Jim Barker, 8715 NE 119th St, Kirkland, Washington 98034, is an architect, and he distributed samples of landscape plans from similar developments in Seattle, King County and Bothell. He stated that in most of these other areas the front, rear and side setback requirements are more flexible and in his experience he felt that in almost every case more than the minimum landscaping was provided. Han Phan, 5130 S. 166th Lane, SeaTac, Washington 98188, stated that he received notice of the City's proposal through his employer, The Concept Group. He provided plans for two examples his firm recently designed in Seattle. Those developments include an easement to go in the back and to all the townhouses, plus parking inside a garage, instead of two parking spaces outside the building. Leonard Gazhenko of GLG Homes, Inc., 3702 W. Valley Hwy., #102, Auburn, Washington 98001, is also the owner of 10 acres of property located at 13112 Military Road So. in Tukwila. He spoke in support of the City's proposal to approve zero lot line townhome developments as he felt it would help the market and developers. Peraxel Lindstrom, PO Box 9848, Seattle, Washington 98109, spoke in support of the zoning and subdivision code amendments for several reasons: - Would provide an excellent transition to single - family housing - Adds greater flexibility and options to developers, and greater optimization in feasibility of smaller projects - Feels the Growth Management Act not only encourages, but also mandates, this type of change City of Tukwila Page 3 of 10 City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes February 11, 2008 7:43.43 p.m. - Council President Duffie closed the public hearing. SPECIAL ISSUES a. Interlocal agreements for grant funding for the Recycling Program, Councilmember Griffin indicated this item was discussed at the Utilities Committee on February 4, 2008. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner, stated the City has operated a Recycling Assistance Program since the early 1990s, which has provided programs for residents such as special recycling events; distribution of reduced price compost bins, worm bins and rain barrels; community garage sales; and assistance at the community shred day. The program has also assisted businesses starting or improving recycling programs and with other aspects of resource conservation. Funds for these services are provided exclusively through grants, which the City has been awarded from the State of Washington and King County's Solid Waste Division. There is no financial impact to the City's General Fund. An interlocal agreement is required for the City to accept two grants that have been awarded for the 2008 -09 grant cycle. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. b. A resolution regarding the Growth and Transportation Efficiency Center (GTEC). Councilmember Linder indicated this item was discussed at the Transportation Committee meeting on January 29, 2008. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. Maggi Lubov, CTR Coordinator, stated the GTEC designation promotes the City's vision of the Tukwila Urban Center and will aid in transportation demand management. The GTEC program is a 6 -year, voluntary strategic plan that was created with planning funds from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Ms. Lubov explained the urgency in obtaining the GTEC designation is to allow the City to take advantage of WSDOT funds to take a base measurement survey for all employees within the defined Urban Center. The City will not be committed to implement or fund any measures; the designation simply allows the City to take advantage of the offer of technical assistance from WSDOT. In response to questions from Council, Ms. Lubov explained that while the plan summary (page 136 of the agenda packet) does reflect an approximate $6 million shortfall in revenue versus expenses, the funding gaps are addressed on page 137, with options the City may pursue to help offset those costs. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. c. An ordinance regarding modifications to Zoning and Subdivision Codes to allow for zero -lot line townhouse development. Councilmember Hernandez indicated this item was discussed at the Community Affairs & Parks Committee meeting on January 28, 2008. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. In light of the complexity of this issue and the remaining items on this evening's agenda, Council discussed how they would approach the issue. Consensus existed to proceed with in -depth discussion at this meeting, including answering questions raised by citizens during the public hearing earlier this evening, follow d by questions fr m Council. In response to a citizen com nt during the public hearing, Minnie Dhaliwal stated the issue of Iandscapin setbacks was discussed in detail by the Planning Commissionewhic- h- decided to keep the 10 -foot along the sides. There is a provision in the code that allows for an applicant to apply for perimeter averaging, as in Mr. Overbeck's case. She also noted that townhouses may count City of Tukwila Page 4 of 10 City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes February 11, 2008 their perimeter setback landscaping towards their open space, so that advantage is already being made available. She noted, however, that building the road right next to the property line without any buffer with the adjacent property would not be allowed under the averaging. In response to the comment by Han Phan during the public hearing regarding parking, Ms. Dhaliwal confirmed that the proposed code does require one parking space to be in an attached garage (one could be outside, but at least one must be in a garage). In response to questions from Council, Ms. Dhaliwal confirmed the design review criteria outlined in the draft ordinance (on pages 16, 17 and 18 of the agenda packet) are the same as those currently outlined in the code. Council continued with a page -by -page review of the information provided in the agenda packet. Councilmember Robertson questioned the use of the word "should" in the first sentence of paragraph A (page 20 of the agenda packet). Ms. Dhaliwal confirmed that applicants must meet all criteria in the design guidelines, but they may be site specific. If conditions apply, they have to be met. She reiterated that these design guidelines are as important as the requirements outlined in the code. It was agreed that the word "should" be replaced with "shall" in paragraph A. Councilmember Hougardy questioned the strength of the wording under "Natural Environment" (page 21) regarding incorporating "existing healthy and attractive vegetation into project design by locating buildings to maximize significant tree retention on slopes, retain tree stands, and minimize disturbance of sensitive areas." Ms. Dhaliwal noted the current code requires that if a tree is taken down along any sensitive areas, it must be replaced. Should a tree preclude any development on the property, the design review process would be the mechanism for making these decisions. Rhonda Berry, City Administrator, noted these guidelines are used in conjunction with other standards and rules and will apply when the situation warrants. Ms. Dhaliwal responded to other questions from Council regarding density calculations (referencing the MDR Basic Development Standards on page 11 of the agenda packet); setback requirements (in relation to the street, yard, parent lot and adjacent low density residential [LDR] areas); modulation (horizontal and /or vertical); easement/yard usage where two detached units are adjacent to one side lot line; common area guidelines (which only apply if there are more than 9 units); and neighborhood compatibility. Councilmember Robertson questioned the increase in the development coverage limitation (from 50% to 75 %). The important issue, as it relates to development coverage, is the ground's ability to absorb surface water, and the proposed change creates a one - fourth reduction in that ability. Mr. Robertson asked whether consideration had been given to requiring pervious surfaces, i.e. constructing the driveways using pervious cement, if development goes to 75% coverage. Ms. Dhaliwal responded that would be part of the design review process, i.e. the use of permeable solutions would be encouraged. Jim Morrow, Public Works Director, responded there are low impact development options, which need to be looked at on a site -by -site basis because geological conditions between sites change dramatically. Permeable asphalt may work well on one site, but may not perc on another site. In addition, these permeable surfaces require a great deal more maintenance work — either for the City or the property owner. Common bioswales by the roadway may also be an option when the townhouses are developed in groups. If a developer wishes to use low impact development options, they will be required to demonstrate the site will accept the proposed method. Ms. Dhaliwal suggested a change to the wording to the effect that if a site allows for such measures —and the drainage design meets all adopted codes —the increase from 50% to 75% shall use low impact development techniques. In response to a question about Section 14 of the proposed ordinance, paragraph 1.c., Ms. Dhaliwal will ) '\ ,change language to clarify that it is applicable to townhouses only. v 1 City of Tukwila Page 5 of 10 City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes February 11, 2008 Ms. Dhaliwal also explained the process for achieving the design elements outlined in Section II, Building Design, of the Townhouse Design Guidelines. The design review process goes to a public hearing, and the Planning Commission would make a final decision. j 'Councilmember Hernandez noted what appeared to be conflicting requirements regarding building entrances (on pages 28 and 30 of the agenda packet). Ms. Dhaliwal indicated that changes would be made to clarify the intent. Discussion was held regarding roofline variations, and whether flat roofs should be allowed as an option due to leakage problems common in our climate. It was agreed that wording to the effect of "Flat roofs shall be discouraged" would be included. Mr. Pace noted that the intent was to refine the City's existing multi - family guidelines for townhouses, while allowing for some flexibility in order to avoid "cookie- cutter designs" among multiple developments. It was also noted that these guidelines would apply to redeveloped housing in high density residential (HDR) zones also —not just new construction —and as • such could impact existing neighborhoods. Council discussed options such as allowing several townhouse developments as a pilot project as was done recently with cottage housing, limiting the number or location of allowed developments that would initially be approved, or revisiting the issue after the first few developments are completed. It was noted the cottage housing project was designed to open up LDR zones for a higher density. Condominiums would already be an allowed option, but townhouses provide an opportunity for residents to also own the land. Mr. Pace also discussed ways to incorporate incentives for developers, while also adhering to several factors Council has considered important in the past: - Encouraging owner - occupied housing. - Relating the new project to the surrounding houses. - Achieving better design quality (to avoid the appearance of an "army barracks "). - Relating the project to the public street, while incorporating the long, narrow lots com in mo many parts oft a Cit . L t ' a _ '-t. C • UNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 3, 2008. 9:17:03 p.m. Council President Duffle declared a 5- minute break from the meeting 9:25:50 p.m. Council President Duffle re- convened the meeting d. A resolution regarding Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) rosters for construction and consultant contracts. Councilmember Griffin indicated this item was discussed at the Utilities Committee on February 4, 2008, and the committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. Councilmember Linder indicated this item was also discussed at the Transportation Committee on January 29, 2008, and those committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. Jim Morrow, Public Works Director, explained the City currently maintains a small works roster, both for construction and consultants. The City of Lynnwood initiated and developed shared rosters several years ago, but the process has now outgrown their capabilities. MRSC has agreed to take on the effort, which will save the City from advertising and evaluating individual qualifications. Instead, the City would be able to go to the MRSC database, select a contractor or consultant, and proceed with our usual process, resulting in a savings of time, effort and money. Councilmember Quinn noted that this was an excellent example of using technology to protect taxpayer dollars. City of Tukwila Page 6 of 10 City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes February 11, 2008 In response to a question from Han Phan in the audience ( 5130 S. 166th Lane, SeaTac, Washington 98188) regarding how the City would select a consultant, Mr. Morrow explained they would select anywhere from 5 to 7 qualified contractors or consultants from the central database, contact them to see if they were interested in the proposed project, obtain bids, and then evaluate the applicants through the City's standard selection process. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. e. Southcenter Boulevard Water Main Replacement final settlement and budget shortfall. Councilmember Griffin indicated this item was discussed at the Utilities Committee on February 4, 2008. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. This project replaced the water main from Grady Way to Tukwila Parkway and required crossing the Southcenter Boulevard bridge. Mr. Morrow explained two occurrences that resulted in a $49,035 budget shortfall. A change order was needed as a result of Time Warner requesting additional conduits be put on the bridge. In addition, the contractor protested that the design plans were not clear enough to allow the bidder to plan for all the intricacies required for the project without significant extra labor, materials and equipment. Funds to pay for this shortfall would come from two sources: Time Warner ($45,000), and an additional $4,000 from the Interurban Water Reuse Project included in the 2008 -2013 CIP (reference page 167 of the agenda packet). COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. f. An ordinance regarding emergency management. Councilmember Robertson indicated this item was discussed at the Finance & Safety Committee meeting on February 5, 2008. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. This ordinance will update Chapter 2.57 of the Tukwila Municipal Code to incorporate the requirements of the Incident Command System (ICS) per the National Incident Management System (NIMS) for emergency management. Mr. Morrow presented Council with the following additional language (which would be added to the ordinance as Section 2.57.70) to define the responsibilities of the Emergency Management Coordinator: 2.57.70 Emergency Management Coordinator The Emergency Management Coordinator (EMC) is a full -time position that reports to the Director of Emergency Management. The EMC will assure, as part of the position's responsibilities, that the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and its supporting procedures are reviewed and updated annually; that an education and training program is developed and implemented in emergency management tasks for City employees, residents, and businesses; and that periodic training and field exercises are conducted. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. g. Amendment #1 to Contract #03 -058 with Starfire Sports. Councilmember Hernandez indicated this item was discussed at the Community Affairs & Parks Committee meeting on January 28, 2008. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. Amendments would be made to several sections of the City's contract with Starfire Sports in order to allow new soccer fields to be constructed at the softball complex at Fort Dent Park, and to address parking issues and allow free parking for Tukwila residents. City of Tukwila Page 7 of 10 City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes February 11, 2008 Bruce Fletcher, Parks & Recreation Director, provided background on the City's acquisition of Fort Dent Park. In 2001 King County planned to close Fort Dent. The City's budget would not allow the City to acquire and operate the park, but Starfire Sports, a non - profit organization, approached the City with a proposal for a public /non - profit partnership. The City then accepted the property and entered into a long- term agreement with Starfire in March 2003. Fort Dent is currently the most -used park in the City. The Seattle area was recently awarded an expansion Major League Soccer (MLS) franchise that will compete in 2009. Starfire Sports and the owners of the new MLS franchise made a proposal to the City to turn the softball complex at Fort Dent Park into soccer fields to serve as the team's practice facility. Mr. Fletcher noted there are currently 13 teams (and 29 Tukwila residents) playing softball in Tukwila's Parks & Recreation programs, while youth soccer had over 400 youth playing in 2007 (of which 200 were Tukwila residents). Adrian Hanauer, 1964 4th Ave. So., Seattle, Washington 98134, introduced himself as one of the owners of the Major League Soccer franchise just announced in Seattle 3 months ago. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, and is equally accessible for boys, girls, all economic levels and backgrounds, and all ethnic backgrounds. In order to build a world -class organization, they need a world -class facility to train, and he has been equally impressed with the quality of the facility and the commitment of Starfire's organization and staff to this community. Mr. Hanauer stated that team members come from diverse backgrounds and are good role models. An important part of their charter is to work with kids, as it relates both to being good soccer players and good citizens. Camps, clinics, development, and school appearances will all be part of their responsibility as professional athletes. Chris Slatt, Chief Executive Officer of Starfire Sports, 14800 Starfire Way, Tukwila, Washington 98188, displayed a preliminary concept drawing of the proposed change, which he noted may be impacted by forthcoming improvements to the dyke in that area. The proposal would include two large fields for the professional team to train on, two 50x85 yard fields, and 8 smaller fields for younger players. Ms. Berry noted that a pre - application meeting has been held, and the firm involved is familiar with dyke issues and drainage issues. Mr. Slatt also noted there have been some discussions with Public Works regarding water retention. Councilmember Robertson asked Mr. Slatt, "Would there be any cost to the City for that entire facility, including stormwater drainage changes and things like that ?" Mr. Slatt responded, "I don't believe that's contemplated at all." Councilmember Robertson asked, "If there's additional stormwater work, that would be at Starfire's or the MLS team's expense ?" Mr. Slatt responded, "I would assume so, and that would come out of the normal process that would, you know, we would go through the design process to see if there are any implications there." Angelica Tapia, 5821 S. 152nd PI, #17, Tukwila, Washington 98188, spoke on behalf of Starfire, and also submitted letters from several other residents who were not able to attend tonight's meeting. Ms. Tapia stated that she has boys who play soccer and has seen the positive impacts it has had on their lives. She also appreciates Starfire's outreach program to youth in the community. Ms. Tapia also stated that her husband plays softball and would be impacted by the change, but he realizes there are other places to play softball. Stephan Tapia, 5821 S. 152nd PI., #17, Tukwila, Washington 98188, has lived in Tukwila his whole life and currently attends Showalter Middle School. He stated he feels the members of the Seattle Sounders, who currently practice at Starfire, have been good role models for him. Adrian Hernandez, 3700 Southcenter Blvd., #26, Tukwila, Washington 98188, stated his experiences playing soccer at Starfire have helped him in school and to make friends, and improved his soccer skills. Jeremiah Paaga, 15046 Macadam Rd., #J2, Tukwila, Washington 98188, stated that Starfire is a good place for kids, teens and adults. He enjoys going there for soccer, but also to visit friends and the staff. He has received some training from several of the Seattle Sounder players and feels they have been a good influence on his life. City of Tukwila Page 8 of 10 City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes February 11, 2008 Lolita O'Donnell, 812 SW 174th St., Normandy Park, Washington 98166, has been a volunteer for Tukwila soccer for the past 9 years. She is currently involved with two teams that have a tremendous relationship with Starfire. She is excited about the opportunity this could bring to children from all walks of life in the community. Scott Elston, 30614 2nd Ave. SW, Federal Way, Washington 98023, is the current President of Tukwila Soccer, and feels Starfire has a major influence on their organization and the children they represent in our community. They provide an opportunity for children from lower eco- social backgrounds to play soccer, and many receive scholarships, with assistance from Starfire. He feels it would be a tremendous inspiration to the children to have major league soccer in their own backyard. John Hendron, 18302 NE 107th St., Redmond, Washington, spoke in opposition to the proposal. His family moved to Seattle in 1974, and subsequently to Redmond. He feels Fort Dent was a regional park built by taxpayers from the County. If the park is converted to a soccer -only facility, it will be unusable to his family. The current facility is the premier softball complex in the State of Washington, and national championships have been held there. Mr. Hendron stated he would be more amenable to the proposal if it was to be used for youth soccer, but feels giving it to a private enterprise is wrong. Jim Donner, 2303 North 194th St., Shoreline, Washington 98133, stated he is both in favor of and opposed to the proposal. Mr. Donner is the ASA Youth Commissioner for Seattle/Tacoma and hosted national championships at Fort Dent Park in 1999, 2001, 2002, 2006. 136 teams from 37 different states participated in the 2006 tournament, including booking hotel rooms for 6 nights and renting fields for 22 weekends. He has played for 30+ years and coached fast -pitch softball for 11 years, and Fort Dent Park is the best place to play in the State. There are only a limited number of other fields in the area north of Kent. Mr. Donner said that he has also worked at Starfire, and is aware of issues with the softball fields such as cracked concrete, short fences, and drainage problems, and understands there are limited funds to pay for infrastructure improvements. Therefore, he feels it would be a shame to have the soccer option rejected if there is no money to make needed improvements for softball. He would like the Council to recognize there is a need in this area for 4 -field softball complexes where tournaments could be held. In response to a request from Councilmember Quinn, Mr. Slatt explained the difference between the cost of maintaining softball fields versus soccer fields. The cost of maintaining the infields for softball to top level is extremely expensive, as they can get very hard and dangerous in our climate, and maintaining the grass is also expensive. Soccer fields use synthetic turf, so maintenance is much less. He did note that some softball fields are now being built with synthetic turf fields. Another difference is that soccer games are played in all weather conditions, whereas in softball there are rainouts, resulting in no income to the complex. Mr. Slatt stated that the MLS team would like to start training before the end of 2008, so construction would potentially start this summer. It is possible, therefore, the complex would be available for a partial softball season this year. Councilmember Robertson directed a question to City Attorney Shelley Kerslake as to whether there would be a conflict with a grass field being dedicated for professional use when the City's agreement with King County states it would be used for "recreational use ". Ms. Kerslake stated the deed restriction is not well defined as to what recreation is. A rough calculation shows that the percentage of the total Starfire complex that may not be available for public use would be approximately 3 %; however, the City would gain additional fields for younger players in exchange. The City is also getting an asset in having these professional players promoting recreation in the community. The risk would be a suit by King County if they chose to enforce the deed restriction. The penalty to the City would be they would have to give the County equivalent park land in return —which would be ironic as the the County has been trying to reduce the amount of park land they own. Another option would be for the City to ask the developer to indemnify the City, so any risk would fall to the developer to defend that suit. In her opinion, the risk of a suit by King County appears relatively low, as her office could find no case where the County had enforced its right under the deed restriction in other cities. City of Tukwila Page 9 of 10 City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes February 11, 2008 In response to a question from Mayor Haggerton about the MLS players' involvement with the community, Mr. Slatt stated that Starfire is currently working with Tukwila Community Schools Collaboration (TCSC) to provide programs such as a combination study /play program. The presence of MLS players would provide a great opportunity for youth to share experiences with professional players. Mr. Hanauer noted that the Seattle Sounders players who currently practice at the complex are very good about participating in informal coaching sessions with the kids. Most of the players have gone on to get their degree; they understand hard work and goal setting, and live healthy lifestyles. This all happens now in an informal atmosphere, and they are talking with Starfire about more formal programs also. A public hearing on this issue is scheduled for February 19, 2008. Mr. Fletcher stated that a notice would be sent to all softball captains currently participating through the City's programs. Mr. Fletcher also addressed the amendment as it relates to parking. Section 1.9 of the contract would be amended to state the City and Starfire would work together should any additional parking be required, and to provide free parking to Tukwila residents during events. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. REPORTS a. Mayor Mayor Haggerton noted that a question from a citizen was raised at the last meeting regarding the status of Tukwila Village, and stated that a letter was delivered to Northfield Car Wash on February 5, 2008 requesting vacation of that property within 30 days. He also stated that he has heard references that the City has abandoned the CERTS training program; however, the City is currently re- evaluating the job description of that position and will be soliciting a CERTS trainer. The Mayor also had meetings with Debra Entenman from U.S. Representative Adam Smith's Tacoma office on February 5, 2008; Denis Law, Mayor of Renton, on February 7, 2008, regarding the Strander Extension project; and Joni Earl, Chief Executive Officer of Sound Transit, regarding the commuter rail station. b. City Council Councilmember Hernandez attended an Affordable Housing Advisory Board meeting on February 6, 2008. She also attended the Sound Transit Open House that evening. On February 7, 2008 she attended a meeting at the Community Center regarding the Centennial historic homes tour, and the Russian delegation's visit at Tukwila Elementary School. On February 7, 2008, Councilmember Hernandez also attended a briefing at the fire station for the fire services consultant interviews, and the Equity & Diversity Commission meeting that evening. On February 8, 2008, she attended the Chamber of Commerce lunch, the California Pizza Kitchen event on February 10, 2008, and their ribbon - cutting earlier today. Councilmember Linder had no report. Councilmember Robertson had no report. Councilmember Griffin had no report. Councilmember Hougardy attended the Government Affairs meeting on February 5, 2008, where Mayor Haggerton gave a report on the City, and the Finance & Safety Committee meeting that evening. On February 7, 2008, she attended a meeting on upcoming Centennial events (she is serving as chair of the committee planning the historic homes tour), and the visit of the Russian delegation to Tukwila Elementary School. On February 8, 2008, she attended the Chamber of Commerce lunch, and the California Pizza Kitchen event on February 10, 2008. Councilmember Quinn attended the visit of the Russian delegation to Tukwila Elementary School on February 7, 2008, and the California Pizza Kitchen event on February 10, which he noted drew people from Seattle and other areas. City of Tukwila Page 10 of 10 City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes February 11, 2008 Council President Duffie thanked City Administrator Rhonda Berry, the Fire Chief, Police Chief, and Derek Speck, Economic Development Administrator, for attending the visit of the Russian delegation to Tukwila Elementary School. He stated that members of the delegation praised the warm reception they received in Tukwila. Mr. Duffie also requested that Councilmembers respond as soon as possible to the e-mail sent by Council Analyst Kimberly Matej regarding the upcoming Council retreat. c. Staff Rhonda Berry, City Administrator, reported that during the Mayor's meeting on February 5, 2008 with Debra Entenman, liaison for Adam's Smith's office, Ms. Entenman encouraged high school and college students to apply for an internship with their office. Ms. Berry also reported that City Clerk Jane Cantu will be retiring effective March 31 after 20 years of service to the City. d. City Attorney The City Attorney's presence is not required at Committee of the Whole meetings. e. Intergovenmental No report. MISCELLANEOUS Mayor Haggerton noted that his wife, Carol, will be unable to attend the Council retreat this month due to the recent death of a relative and severe illness of a second relative. ADJOURNMENT 10:45:37 p.m. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DUFFIE DECLARED THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURNED. Joe Duffie, Council President Barbara Saxton, Administrative Support Coordinator Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Council review 02/11/08 JP .A,��`' 02/19/08 ]P COUNCIL A GENDA SYNOPSIS Initials ITEM INFORMATION IrEMNo. CAS NUMBER: O ( 6— DI 1 AGENDA IT EM TITLE Townhouse Zoning and Subdivision Code Amendments. CATEGORY ® Discussion Mtg Dote 2/11/08 SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Ma ❑ Adm Svcs ® DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ Legal ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW SPONSOR'S SUMMARY The proposal is to amend the zoning and subdivision zero -lot line townhomes in MDR and HDR zones. codes to allow for development of R13VIIWED BY RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Hold the public hearing on the proposed draft ordinance. COMMITTEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole OST' T_/ FUND SOURCE AMOUNT BUDGETED EXPENDITURJF REQUIRED Fund Source: N/A Comments: MTG. DATE 02/11/08 MTG. DATE 02 -11 -08 ❑ Motion Mtg Date ❑ Resolution Mtg Date ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2008 ® Ordinance Mtg Date 2/19/08 ❑ Bid Award Mtg Dote ❑ COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte ❑ F &S Cmte ❑ Transportation Cmte ❑ Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ® Planning Comm. DATE: 1 -28 -08 (CAP), 6- 28 -07, 11 -08- 07,12 -13 - 07 (PC) RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION' ® Public Hearing Mtg Dote 02/11/08 ATTACHMENTS Information memo dated 02 -01 -08 with attachments, to include draft Ordinance Minutes from Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 01- 28 -08. ❑ Other Mtg Date APPROPRIATION REQUIRED 1 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Haggerton Committee of the Whole FROM: Jack Pace, DCD Director DATE: February 1, 2008 SUBJECT: Townhouse Zoning and Subdivision Code Amendments ISSUE Should the Zoning and Subdivision Codes be changed to allow for development of zero -lot line /fee simple townhomes on individual lots (lot lines would run through the buildings)? Due to MDR and HDR development standards such as minimum lot sizes and side yard setback requirements only condominiums or apartments can be built in our multi - family zones, though they could be built in townhouse form. BACKGROUND DCD has periodically been approached by developers interested in building zero -lot line or fee simple townhomes. Developers think that there is a stronger market for this type of housing on individually owned lots rather than as condominiums and the insurance requirements for condominiums make many small projects unfeasible. Providing for an additional type of housing ownership (townhouses on individual zero -lot line lots) would expand the housing options of Tukwila's residents and provide multi - family property owners an alternative to apartment development. In addition to the technical changes needed to create individual townhouse lots changes to Tukwila's bulk and coverage limitations may encourage the market to provide townhouses. Because townhouses are typically significantly larger than stacked apartments and condominiums under the current code requirements fewer townhouse units than apartments could be built on a given site, making them a less attractive development option. The Planning Commission held a hearing on June 28 and recommended a few changes to the staff's proposal. The second hearing was held on November 8, 2007, to finalize the Townhouse Design Guidelines. On December 13, 2007, the Planning Commission forwarded the proposed changes to City Council. Staff presented the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP) Committee on January 28, 2008. Following items were discussed at the meeting or have come up since the meeting: e Councilmember Hernandez asked staff to clarify if the proposed projects will have to meet all design guidelines or were some guidelines optional. The Zoning Code MD Pagel 02-01 -2008 Q: \Townhomes \COW- 02 -11 -08 Townhouse.DOC 3 4 includes design criteria for multi - family projects and any proposed project has to meet all of the listed criteria. The multifamily design manual and the townhouse design manual provide examples and guidance as to how to meet the intent of the criteria. The multifamily design review criteria are not proposed to be changed as part of this code amendment. See the draft ordinance (attachment A) for the design review criteria. • Councilmember Griffin asked staff to include a map of the areas of the city where townhouses are likely to be developed. See attachment F. • It was also decided to include in the Council packet a copy of comments submitted by Mike Overbeck, a potential developer. See attachment G. • Since the committee meeting staff had a couple of preapplication meetings with developers and as a result of those discussions, staff has added some clarifying language to the MDR and HDR development standards. This relates to minimum lot area per unit standard. For townhouses to be considered compatible to condominiums, the density shall be calculated based on one unit per 3000 sq. ft. (in MDR) and 2000 sq. ft. (in HDR) of the "parent lot area ". However the "unit lot" shall be allowed to include the common access easements. ANALYSIS Due to Tulcwila's prevailing pattern of narrow, deep lots in most infill situations townhouses would be perpendicular to the street, rather than the traditional row house with stoops along the street and alley access behind. Below is an example of a typical market driven design for ten units on an 80'x240' infill lot showing the dashed individual parcel lines through the buildings. MD Q:1Townhomes\COW- 02 -11 -08 Townhouse.DOC See Attachment D for examples of townhouses in Tukwila and Renton. See Attachment E for a comparison of Tukwila's current multi - family standards to townhouse standards in other cities. The shaded cells on the chart are areas where staff is suggesting changes. Staff circulated the discussion of proposed changes to a few developers who have expressed an interest in townhouse development in Tukwila. Their feedback has been used to shape the Planning Commission recommended changes which are grouped by subject area and discussed below. These include both the minimum changes necessary to allow Page 2 02 -01 -08 platting of townhouse lots as well as additional changes that would bring Tukwila's standards closer to prevailing market driven development patterns. Subdivision Code The recommended approach to the subdivision process is to follow Seattle's example in treating townhouse and cottage housing projects similarly to a binding site plan. This would apply lot size, lot width, setback and landscape standards to the original "parent" parcel rather than the "unit" lots that contain the individual townhomes. This would result in the same treatment adjacent to the neighboring properties while allowing a different ownership pattern. Other than that change both the short plat and subdivision platting process could follow the standard procedure with preliminary approval, infrastructure construction, final approval and then building permit. We would allow the building foundations to be constructed prior to final approval along with the rest of the site improvements so that the lot lines could be drawn accurately through the existing common walls. If the buildings are constructed after the plat sometimes field conditions require boundary line adjustments to meet the as built conditions. MDR/HDR Zoning Standards In addition to the technical changes needed to allow platting of townhouse sized lots the Planning Commission recommends the following modifications to the bulk and coverage requirements to allow for a more market driven development pattern and density closer to what is achievable for stacked apartments or condominiums. • Setbacks Setback requirements should be applied to the parent lot rather than the unit lots since their purpose is to protect neighboring properties. The front and second front setbacks would not increase for the third or fourth floors unless the adjacent property was zoned LDR. The side and rear setbacks would not increase for the second and third floor but would increase only for fourth floor or if adjacent to LDR. This would still provide a buffer to the adjacent property while allowing for consistent floor plans for the townhouses. A new building separation standard would be adopted for townhouse buildings of 10' for 2 story buildings and 20' for 3 and 4 story buildings. • Modulation Because townhouse units are generally narrow the existing modulation requirements would pose a significant constraint on the design. In exchange for shorter allowable building lengths (80' in MDR and 125' in HDR) the 4 foot modulation requirements would not be increased for three and four story townhouse buildings. MD Page 3 02 -01 -08 Q: \Townhomes \COW -02 -11-08 Townhouse.DOC 5 6 Development Coverage It is not possible to achieve zoned density with a typical townhouse product under the 50% development coverage limitation. Townhouses are typically twice as large as an average apartment usually with 2 to 3 bedrooms and a garage. The recommended 75% development coverage would be similar to the impervious surface limitations common in other jurisdictions. • Recreation Space Setback areas that are part of a private yard for an individual unit would be allowed to count toward the 400 sq. ft. per unit recreation space requirement as long as it measured at least 10' on all sides. Since the small private yards are generally fenced the height of opaque fences along street frontages should be limited to 4 feet, with lattice or other open material allowed up to 6 feet. MD Q:\Townhomes \COW- 02 -11 -08 Townhouse.DOC Private yard that includes side yard setback area The current requirement for at least 25% of the recreation space to be devoted to shared children's play areas would start with developments of ten or more lots. This would ensure that the play area is large enough to be usable and that there is a critical mass of owners to share the burden of maintenance and liability insurance. • Detached zero -lot line units The townhouse definition covers attached units, but there has been interest to develop detached compact single family units in MDR zone. Staff is recommending adding a definition of detached zero lot line dwelling units and permitting these type of developments in MDR zone subject to design review approval and meeting the recreation space requirements of a townhouse. The zero lot line type of development pattern allows houses to be constructed immediately adjacent to one side lot line (no side yard setback), coupled with an easement on the adjacent lot for maintenance purposes. This helps preserve privacy and usable yard space, especially in small lot areas. Design Review The existing Multi - Family Design Guidelines booklet has a number of sections that may not be applicable to townhouses, such as the common space guidelines, parking lot standards and building separation requirements. In addition it does not provide Page 4 02 -01 -08 illustrations that reflect townhouse density or building types. See Attachment B for the proposed townhouse guidelines with illustrations. RECOMMENDATION After the public hearing on February 11, 2008, schedule the Planning Commission's recommended code changes for deliberation and adoption on March 3, 2008. Attachment A and B include the Planning Commission's recommendations and staff's clarifying language to minimum lot area per unit. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Ordinance in strikeout/underline format B. Draft Townhouse Design Guidelines C. Planning Commission meeting minutes from June 28 Nov 8 and Dec 13 meetings. D. Townhouse Examples E. Comparison of Tukwila's current MDR and HDR standards to townhouse standards in other cities F. Map of Potential Townhouse sites. G. Comments submitted by Mike Overbeck, potential developer at the CAP meeting. MD Page 5 02 -01 -08 Q: \Townhomes \COW -02 -11-08 Townhouse.DOC 7 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CODE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF ZERO -LOT LINE/FEE SIMPLE TOWNHOUSES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the zoning and subdivision codes of the City of Tukwila do not specifically list zero -lot line townhouses as a permitted use and the development standards in the multifamily zones are not conducive for townhouse type of development; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to allow attached and detached zero -lot line townhouses as another type of ownership housing in the multifamily zones; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to expand the choices for development in the multifamily zones from condominiums and apartments to attached and detached zero -lot line townhouses; WHEREAS, on June 28 November 8th, and December 13th, 2007, the Tukwila Planning Commission, following adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning amending the zoning code and subdivision code to allow townhouses and on December 13, 2007, adopted a motion recommending the proposed changes; WHEREAS, on February 11, 2007, the Tukwila City Council, following adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive a testimony concerning the recommendations of the Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance 1833 §1(part) as codified in TMC 17.12.010 is amended as follows: 17.12.010 Scope Any land being divided into nine or fewer parcels, lots, unit lots, tracts or sites for the purpose of sale, lease, or gift, any one of which is less than 20 acres in size, shall meet the requirements of this chapter. Section 2. New section is hereby added to TMC Chapter 17.12 as follows: 17.12.070 Unit lot short plats A. Sites developed or proposed to be developed with townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, or zero -lot line units may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. Any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. B. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. 8 ATTACHMENT A 1 C. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common play areas), and other similar features, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. D. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. E. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. Construction of townhouse dwelling foundations may commence prior to final short plat approval, provided: 1. The proposed short plat has received preliminary approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed to assure construction of required public improvements; 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor impair City enforcement of conditions of subdivision approval; 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued until final short plat approval is granted. Section 3. Ordinance 1833 §1(part) as codified in TMC 17.14.010 is amended as follows: 17.14.010 Scope Any land being divided into 10 or more parcels, lots, unit lots, tracts or sites, for the purpose of sale or gift, any one of which is less than 20 acres in size, or any land which has been divided under the short subdivision procedures within five years and is not eligible for further short platting pursuant to Section 17.12.010 shall conform to the procedures and requirements of this chapter. Section 4. New section is hereby added to TMC Chapter 17.14 as follows: 17.14.060 Unit lot subdivisions A. Sites developed or proposed to be developed with townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, or zero -lot line units may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. Any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. B. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. C. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common play areas), and other similar features, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. D. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. E. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. Construction of townhouse dwelling foundations may commence prior to final plat approval, provided: 1. The proposed plat has received preliminary approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed to assure construction of required public improvements; 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor impair City enforcement of conditions of subdivision approval; 2 9 1 0 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued until final plat approval is granted. Section 5. New definitions are hereby added to TMC Chapter 18.06 Definitions as follows: 18.06.8XX Detached Zero Lot Line units A development pattern of detached dwelling units constructed immediately adjacent to one side lot line (i.e. no side yard setback), coupled with an easement on the adjacent lot in order to maintain separation between structures. The easement will provide access rights for maintenance purposes; help preserve privacy and usable yard space. 18.06.537 Lot, Parent "Lot, parent" means the initial lot from which unit lots are subdivided for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, zero -lot line units, or any combination of the above types of residential development. 18.06.542 Lot, Unit "Lot, unit" means one (1) of the individual lots created from the subdivision of a parent lot for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, zero -lot line units, or any combination of the above types of residential development. 18.06.8XX Townhouse "Townhouse" means a form of ground- related housing in which individual dwelling units are attached along at least one (1) common wall to at least one (1) other dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit occupies space from the ground to the roof and has direct access to private open space. No portion of a unit may occupy space above or below another unit, except that townhouse units may be constructed over a common shared parking garage, provided the garage is underground. Section 6. Ordinance 1834 §2(part) as codified in TMC 18.06.768 is amended as follows: 18.06.768 Short Subdivision "Short subdivision" means the division of land into nine or less lots, unit lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions. 18.06.813 Subdivision "Subdivision" means the division or redivision of land into ten or more lots, unit lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions. Section 7. Ordinance 1976 §20, 1865 §9, and 1758 §1(part) as codified in TMC 18.12, is amended as follows: 18.12.020 Permitted Uses A. The following uses are permitted outright within the Medium Density District, subject to compliance with all other applicable requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code: 1. Dwelling - One detached single - family dwelling per lot. 2. Dwelling - Multi - family duplex, triplex, of fourplex units or townhouse up to four attached units. 3. Detached zero lot line units. 311. Animal veterinary, including associated temporary indoor boarding; access to an arterial required. 4.5. Day care centers. 5,6. Public parks, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds, but not including amusement parks, golf courses, or commercial recreation. 6:7. Shelters. 3 B. In Commercial Redevelopment Areas 1, 2, and 4 (see Figures 18 -9 or 18 -10), the uses and development standards of the adjacent commercial zone are permitted and shall apply, subject to the specific criteria and procedures defined in TMC 18.60.060. Section 8. Ordinance 1976 §23, and 1758 §1(part) as codified in TMC 18.12.070, is amended as follows; 18.12.070 Basic Development Standards Development within the Medium Density Residential District shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: MDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4 11 Lot area, minimum 8,000 sq. ft. (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Lot area per unit (multi- family) 3,000 sq. ft. (For townhouses the density shall be calculated based on one unit per 3000 sq. ft. of parent lot area. The "unit lot" area shall be allowed to include the common access easements),. Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Setbacks, minimum: Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front - 1st floor 15 feet • Front - 2nd floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd floor 30 feet X20 feet for townhouses) • Second front - 1st floor 7.5 feet • Second front - 2nd floor 10 feet • Second front - 3rd floor 15 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Sides - 1st floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR • Sides - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 1st floor 10 feet • Rear - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR'1 Townhouse buildin: se ',oration minimum • 1 and 2 stony buildings, 10 feet • 3 buildings 20 feet stony Height, maximum 30 feet Landscape requirements (minimum): See Landscape, Recreation, Recycling/Solid Waste Space requirements chapter for further requirements Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front(s) 15 feet • Sides 10 feet • Rear 10 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum (75% for townhouses) 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. min.) Recreation space B. In Commercial Redevelopment Areas 1, 2, and 4 (see Figures 18 -9 or 18 -10), the uses and development standards of the adjacent commercial zone are permitted and shall apply, subject to the specific criteria and procedures defined in TMC 18.60.060. Section 8. Ordinance 1976 §23, and 1758 §1(part) as codified in TMC 18.12.070, is amended as follows; 18.12.070 Basic Development Standards Development within the Medium Density Residential District shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: MDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4 11 r1L1\ U1 \- 1..../ L., ♦ i,z.s_' A. I w1a..a.. Lot area, minimum 9,600 sq. ft. f Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Lot area per unit (multi- family, except senior citizen housing) 2,000 sq. ft. (For townhouses the density shall be calculated based on one unit per 2000 sq. ft. of parent lot area. The "unit lot" area shall be allowed to include the common access easements)_ Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Setbacks, minimum: Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front - 1st floor 15 feet Off -street parking: • Residential See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off -street Parking & Loading Regulations. • Accessory dwelling unit See Accessory Use section of this chapter • Other uses See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off -street Parking & Loading Regulations 12 Section 9. Ordinance 1976 §24, 1865 §13, 1830 §2, and 1758 § 1(part) as codified in TMC 18.14.070 is amended as follows: 18.14.020 Permitted Uses A. The following uses are permitted outright within the High- Density Residential District, subject to compliance with all other applicable requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 1. Animal veterinary, including associated temporary indoor boarding; access to an arterial required. 2. Convalescent and nursing homes for not more than 12 patients. 3. Day care centers. 4. Manufactured/mobile home park, meeting the following requirements: a. the development site shall comprise not less than two contiguous acres; b. overall development density shall not exceed eight dwelling units per acre; c. vehicular access to individual dwelling units shall be from the interior of the park; and d. emergency access shall be subject to the approval of the Tukwila Fire Department. 5. Dwelling - One detached single - family dwelling per lot 6. Dwelling — multi - family. 7. Dwelling — townhouse up to four attached units. �8. Libraries, museums or art galleries (public). 8.9 Parks, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds (public) but not including amusement parks, golf courses, or commercial recreation. 9.10 Shelters. B. In Commercial Redevelopment Area 3 (see Figures 18 -9 or 18 -10), the uses and development standards of the adjacent commercial zone are permitted and shall apply, subject to the specific criteria and procedures defined in the BAR chapter of this code, TMC 18.60.060. Section 10. Ordinance 1976 §27, 1830 §3, and 1758 § 1(part) as codified in TMC 18.14.070 is amended as follows: 18.14.070 Basic Development Standards Development within the High Density Residential District shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: 5 Section 11. Ordinance 1758 §1(part) as codified in TMC 18.50.070 is amended as follows: 18.50.070 Yard Regulations A. Fences, walls, poles, posts, and other customary yard accessories, ornaments, furniture may be permitted in any yard subject to height limitations and requirements limiting obstruction 6 13 • Front - 2nd floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd floor � 0 feet for townhouses 3 0 feet 2) • Front - 4th floor 45 feet (20 feet for townhouses • Second front - 1st floor 7.5 feet • Second front - 2nd floor 10 feet • Second front - 3rd floor 10 feet for townhouses 1 5 feet ) ( • Second front - 4th floor 22.5 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Sides - 1st floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Sides - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Sides - 4th floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR). • Rear - 1st floor 10 feet • Rear - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 4th floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses unless as_ljacent to LDR) Townhouse buildin: se • aration minimum • 1 and 2 stony buildings 10 feet • 3 and 4 story buildings 20 feet Height, maximum 45 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum (except senior citizen housing, 75% for townhouses) Landscape requirements (minimum): See Landscape, Recreation, Recycling/Solid Waste Space requirements chapter for further requirements Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front(s) 15 feet • Sides 10 feet • Rear 10 feet Recreation space 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. min.) Recreation space, senior citizen housing 100 sq. ft. per dwelling unit Off - street parking: • Residential (except senior citizen housing) See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off -street Parking & Loading Regulations. • Accessory dwelling unit See Accessory Use section of this chapter • Other uses, including senior citizen housing See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off -street Parking & Loading Regulations Section 11. Ordinance 1758 §1(part) as codified in TMC 18.50.070 is amended as follows: 18.50.070 Yard Regulations A. Fences, walls, poles, posts, and other customary yard accessories, ornaments, furniture may be permitted in any yard subject to height limitations and requirements limiting obstruction 6 13 14 of visibility to the detriment of public safety. The height of opaque fences along street frontages is limited to 4 feet, with lattice or other open material allowed up to 6 feet. B. In the case of through lots, unless the prevailing front yard pattern on adjoining lots indicates otherwise, front yards shall be provided on all frontages. C. Where the front yard that would normally be required on a lot is not in keeping with the prevailing yard pattern, the DCD may waive the requirement for the normal front yard and substitute therefore a special yard requirement which shall not exceed the average of the yards provided on adjacent lots. D. In the case of corner lots, a front yard of the required depth shall be provided in accordance with the prevailing yard pattern, and a second front yard of half the depth required generally for front yards in the district shall be provided on the other frontage. E. In the case of corner lots with more than two frontages, the DCD shall determine the front yard requirements, subject to the following conditions: 1. At least one front yard shall be provided having the full depth required generally in the district; 2. The second front yard shall be the minimum set forth in the district; 3. In the case of through lots and corner lots, there will be no rear yards but only front and side yards; 4. In the case of through lots, side yards shall extend from the rear lines of front yards required. In the case of corner lots, yards remaining after full and halfdepth front yards have been established shall be considered side yards. (See Figure 18 Section 12. Ordinance 1758 §1(part) as codified in TMC 18.50.083 is amended as follows: 18.50.083 Maximum Building Length In the MDR and HDR zones, the maximum building length shall be as follows: For all buildings except as described below: Maximum building length with bonus for modulating off -sets: For structures with a maximum building height of 2 stories or 25 ft., whichever is less, and having horizontal modulation or a minimum vertical change in roof profile of 4 feet at least every two units or 50 feet, whichever is less: For structures with a building height over 2 stories or 25 ft., whichever is less, with a horizontal and vertical modulation of 4 ft. or an 8 ft. modulation in either direction: For townhouse structures with horizontal modulation or a minimum vertical change in roof profile of 4 feet at least every two units or 50 feet, whichever is less: MDR....50 ft HDR ....50 ft MDR....100 ft HDR ....200 ft MDR....100 ft HDR ....200 ft MDR....80 ft HDR ....125 ft Modulation shall be required for every 2 units or 50 feet, whichever is less, as measured along the building's length. Grouping of offsets in maximum four unit modules may be permitted only with BAR approval (see Figure 18 -5). Section 13. Ordinance 1930 §28 and 1758 §1(part) as codified in TMC 18.50.085 is amended as follows: 7 16 required under TMC 18.52.060.1, and shall be designated, located and maintained in a safe condition. b. Adequate fencing, plant screening, or other buffer shall separate the recreation space from parking areas, driveways or public streets. c. The anticipated use of all required recreation areas shall be specified and designed to clearly accommodate that use. Section 15. Ordinance 1976 §62 as codified in TMC 18.56.065 is amended as follows: 18.56.065 Residential Parking Requirements A. Two off - street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit which contains up to three bedrooms. One additional off - street parking space shall be required for every two bedrooms in excess of three bedrooms in a dwelling unit (i.e., four and five bedroom dwelling units shall have three off - street parking spaces, six and seven bedroom homes shall have four spaces, and so on). B. Each unit in a townhouse development shall have an attached garage with parking for at least one vehicle or a parking space in an underground garage. C. The Director shall have the discretion to waive the requirement to construct a portion of the off - street parking requirement if, based on a parking demand study, the property owner establishes that the dwelling will be used primarily to house residents who do not and will not drive due to a factor other than age. Such a study shall assure that ample parking is provided for residents who can drive, guests, caregivers and other persons who work at the residence. If such a waiver is granted, the property owner shall provide a site plan which demonstrates that, in the event of a change of use which eliminates the reason for the waiver, there is ample room on the site to provide the number of off - street parking spaces required by this Code. In the event that a change of use or type of occupant is proposed that would alter the potential number of drivers living or working at the dwelling, the application for change of use shall be conditioned on construction of any additional off - street parking spaces required to meet the standards of this Code. Section 16. Ordinance 1986 §16, 1865 §51, and 1758 §1(part) as codified in TMC 18.14.070 is amended as follows: 18.60.050 Design Review Criteria A. Generally. The BAR is authorized to request and rely upon any document, guideline, or other consideration it deems relevant or useful to satisfy the purpose and objectives of this chapter, specifically including but not limited to the following criteria. The applicant shall bear the full burden of proof that the proposed development plans satisfy all of the criteria. The BAR may modify a literal interpretation of the design review criteria if, in their judgment such modifications better implement the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. C. Multi - Family, Hotel and Motel Design Review Criteria. In reviewing any multi family, hotel or motel application the following criteria shall be used by the BAR in its decision making as well as the Multi- Family Design Manual or Townhouse Design Manual. Detached zero lot line type of developments shall be subject to Townhouse Design Manual. 1. SITE PLANNING. a. Building siting, architecture, and landscaping shall be integrated into and blend harmoniously with the neighborhood building scale, natural environment, and development characteristics as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. For instance, a 9 18.50.085 Maximum Percent Development Area Coverage In the MDR and HDR zones the maximum percent development area coverage shall be 50%, except for senior citizen housing developments in HDR. If the senior citizen housing building is converted to regular apartments the 50% limit must be met. Townhouse developments are allowed up to a maximum of 75% development area coverage. Section 14. Ordinance 1872 §14(part) as codified in TMC 18.52.060 is amended as follows: 18.52.060 Recreation Space Requirements In all MDR and HDR zoning districts, any proposed multiple - family structure, complex or development shall provide on the premises and for the use of the occupants a minimum amount of recreation space according to the following provisions: 1. Required Area. a. For each proposed dwelling unit in the multiple - family development and detached zero lot line type of development, a minimum of 400 square feet (100 square feet for senior citizen housing) of recreation space shall be provided. Any multiple - family structure, complex or development shall provide a minimum of 1,000 square feet of total recreation space. b. Townhouse units shall provide at least 250 sq. ft. of the 400 sq. ft. of recreation space as private, ground level open space measuring not less than 10 feet in any dimension. c. The front, side and rear yard setback areas required by the applicable zoning district shall not qualify as recreation space unless portions are incorporated into private open space with a minimum dimension of 10 feet on all sides. - �ousx�o�*1 2. Indoor or Covered Space. a. No more than 50% of the required recreation space may be indoor or covered space in standard multi- family developments. Senior citizen housing must have at least 20% indoor or covered space. b. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of extensively improved indoor recreation space provided. Interior facility improvements would include a full range of weight machines, sauna, hot tub, large screen television and the like. 3. Uncovered Space. a. A minimum of 50% of the total required recreation space shall be open or uncovered, up to 100% of the total requirement may be in open or uncovered recreation space in standard multi- family developments. Senior citizen housing allows up to 80% of recreation space to be outdoors and has no minimum outdoor space requirement. b. Recreation space shall not exceed a 4% slope in any direction unless it is determined that the proposed space design clearly facilitates and encourages the anticipated use as endorsed by the Director. c. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum credit of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of outdoor pool and surrounding deck area. 4. General Requirements. a. Multiple - family complexes (except senior citizen housing, detached zero lot line and townhouses with nine or fewer units) which provide dwelling units with two or more bedrooms shall provide adequate recreation space for children with at least one space for the 5- to -12- year old group. Such space shall be at least 25% but not more than 50% of the total recreation space 8 15 multi - family development's design need not be harmoniously integrated with adjacent single - family structures if that existing single - family use is designated as "Commercial" or "High Density Residential" in the Comprehensive Plan. However, a "Low Density Residential" (detached single - family) designation would require such harmonious design integration. b. Natural features which contribute to desirable neighborhood character shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Natural features include, but are not limited to, existing significant trees and stands of trees, wetlands, streams, and significant topographic features. c. The site plan shall use landscaping and building shapes to form an aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian scale streetscape. This shall include, but not be limited to facilitating pedestrian travel along the street, using architecture and landscaping to provide a desirable transition from streetscape to the building, and providing an integrated linkage from pedestrian and vehicular facilities to building entries. d. Pedestrian and vehicular entries shall provide a high quality visual focus using building siting, shapes, and landscaping. Such a feature establishes a physical transition between the project and public areas, and establishes the initial sense of high quality development. e. Vehicular circulation design shall minimize driveway intersections with the street. f. Site perimeter design (i.e. landscaping, structures, and horizontal width) shall be coordinated with site development to ensure a harmonious transition between adjacent projects. g. Varying degrees of privacy for the individual residents shall be provided; increasing from the public right -of -way, to common areas, to individual residences. This can be accomplished through the use of symbolic and actual physical barriers to define the degrees of privacy appropriate to specific site area functions. h. Parking and service areas shall be located, designed, and screened to interrupt and reduce the visual impact of large paved areas; i. The height, bulk, footprint, and scale of each building shall be in harmony with its site and adjacent long- term structures. 2. BUILDING DESIGN. a. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and its ability to harmonize building texture, shape, lines and mass with the surrounding neighborhood. b. Buildings shall be of appropriate height, scale, and design/shape to be in harmony with those existing permanent neighboring developments which are consistent with, or envisioned in, the Comprehensive Plan. This will be especially important for perimeter structures. Adjacent structures that are not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan should be considered to be transitional. The degree of architectural harmony required should be consistent with the nonconforming structure's anticipated permanence. c. Building components, such as windows, doors, eaves, parapets, stairs and decks shall be integrated into the overall building design. Particular emphasis shall be given to harmonious proportions of these components with those of adjacent developments. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with the anticipated life of the structure. d. The overall color scheme shall work to reduce building prominence and shall blend in with the natural environment. e. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting shall be used to provide visual interest. Otherwise monotonous flat walls and uniform vertical planes of individual buildings shall be broken up with building modulation, stairs, decks, railings, and focal entries. Multiple building developments shall use siting and additional architectural variety to avoid inappropriate repetition of building designs and appearance to surrounding properties. 3. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT. a. Existing natural topographic patterns and significant vegetation shall be reflected in project design when they contribute to the natural beauty of the area or are important to defining neighborhood identity or a sense of place. 10 17 18 b. Landscape treatment shall enhance existing natural and architectural features, help separate public from private spaces, strengthen vistas and important views, provide shade to moderate the affects of large paved areas, and break up visual mass. c. Walkways, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas shall promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Direct pedestrian linkages to the public street, to on -site recreation areas, and to adjacent public recreation areas shall be provided. d. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties shall be provided. 4. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES. a. Miscellaneous structures shall be designed as an integral part of the architectural concept and landscape. Materials shall be compatible with buildings, scale shall be appropriate, colors shall be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and structure proportions shall be to scale. b. The use of walls, fencing, planting, berms, or combinations of these shall accomplish screening of service yards, and other places that tend to be unsightly. Screening shall be effective in winter and summer. c. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings shall be screened from view. Screening shall be designed as an integral part of the architecture (i.e., raised parapets and fully enclosed under roof) and landscaping. d. Exterior lighting standards and fixtures shall be of a design and size consistent with safety, building architecture and adjacent area. Lighting shall be shielded, and restrained in design with no off -site glare spill over. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors shall not be used unless clearly demonstrated to be integral to building architecture. Section 11. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 12. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force and effect five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting there of this day of , 2008. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED : Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By - Office of the City Attorney Jim Haggerton, Mayor 11 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: 12 19 20 I. SITE PLANNING Streetscape - The transition from public to private spaces A. The transition from a pedestrian oriented streetscape to multi -story buildings should emphasize pedestrian scale architectural elements such as porches, plantings of varying heights, and use pedestrian oriented entries, courts, and lighting. It is possible to make the transition to the site, building and individual unit in many different physical ways. For example, a sidewalk could lead through a gate to a private yard and then to a porch before reaching the front door of the townhouse. The most successful solution will consist of a combination of the above suggested symbolic definers or other comparable mechanisms. TOWNHOUSE DESIGN GUIDELINES llgiiu, landscaping and architcctwr fonts a gateway. Spatial pavers and may sign. Fig. 1: Project entry provides an immediate sense of high quality design. B. Provide a clearly defined building or courtyard entry from the primary street. 1. Use distinctive architectural elements and materials to indicate the entry such as a change in paving material, low wall, steps, trellis, or arbor. Attachment B Natural Environment — Retain natural site amenities C. Incorporate existing healthy and attractive vegetation into project design by locating buildings to maximize significant tree retention on slopes, retain tree stands, and minimize disturbance of sensitive areas. Retaining large stature trees and tree stands on site very significantly improves the integration of new developments into Tukwila's mature neighborhoods. 2. Define the transition space from the sidewalk to the entry with a terrace, plaza, or landscaped area. 3. Consider turning the end unit (or pair of units) to face the public street, see Figure 20. Fig. 2: Site buildings and roads to retain mature trees. D. Landform grading should be used when feasible to reflect the natural topography and retain mature trees. Q:1Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide. doc - 2 - Nov 1, 2007 21 22 STREET Circulation — Pedestrian Q: \Townhomes\.MFami l yDesGu i de.d oc Conventional . Si.te , Plannl.ng STREET Building Landform Site Planning Building Fig. 3: Comparison of conventional and landform site grading. E. Site coverage on slopes should be minimized to reduce visual impact. Site coverage limitations are not as significant on flat sites where lower buildings may be preferable to maximize architectural harmony with nearby structures and the streetscape. F. Site design should be integrated with the neighborhood. Project design integration should include coordination of circulation, landscaping, recreation spaces, and building location with the surrounding area. A visual distinction using landform, landscaping, or materials may separate a project from the general neighborhood. However, high "fortress" walls should be avoided and buildings should not turn their backs to the street. G. A comprehensive system of pedestrian sidewalks should link all building/unit entries, parking lots, recreation areas and the project entries with the area -wide sidewalk system. H. Sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet wide between public roadway and the junction where pedestrian traffic begins to disperse. This would allow one pedestrian to pass another and remain on the sidewalk. A minimum four foot wide sidewalk may then be acceptable. - 3 - Nov 1, 2007 I. Sidewalk crossings of on -site roadways should be distinguished by a different material and slightly raised to prevent runoff from flowing across them. v- Building envy ana Con rasing mavin murky peitesouur crossing. Fig. 4: Key sidewalk intersections and segments are marked with contrasting pavers. J. Buildings should be separated at least 8 feet from driveways and parking spaces where facing windowed walls (but not the entry) of ground units and have a minimum 13 foot separation when facing the entry of ground units. K. Separate buildings from common walkways by at least 8 feet in the structure's front and rear, and a minimum 4 feet on its side. L. Separation guidelines do not apply to incidental structures such as trellises, 18 inch roof eaves, chimneys, covered walks, and pedestrian oriented amenities. Circulation — Vehicular M. Design the on -site vehicle circulation system as follows: • A maximum of two vehicle access points, depending on parcel characteristics and difficulty of access, to reduce traffic impacts and the site area devoted to roads instead of architecture and landscape /recreation space, • Create very low volume cul -de -sacs to allow multiple use as street oriented social/recreation areas, and • Stress shared driveways between adjacent developments. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 4 - Nov 1, 2007 23 Parking N. Locate parking to minimize conflicts between autos and pedestrians. Driveways should avoid crossing pedestrian walkways and paths from residence to children's play area. In large parking lots, provide pedestrian walkways to allowing people to move safely. Additional space should be provided where cars overhang curbs. 0. Separate driveway parking areas with landscape islands to create an individual unit entry and reduce the appearance of large areas of paving. Fig. 5: Separation of driveways with landscape islands. P. Provide the majority of the required parking spaces in attached garages (tandem parking allowed), underground parking, and underbuilding parking when grades permit at least partial screening. Q Minimize the prominence of surface parking by using architecture and landscaping to break up or screen parking areas, moving parking to the side or rear, and breaking up large parking areas into smaller ones. 2 4 Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 5 - Nov 1, 2007 Fig. 6: Parking located so that it is screened by buildings. R. Supplemental parking areas should be located within 200 feet of the farthest dwelling unit served for the convenience of residents. S. The optimum design for a parking area is not necessarily the one which parks the maximum number of vehicles, but the one that also provides ample stall and aisle widths, pedestrian walks, adequate turning radii, reasonable grades, efficient movement of traffic, pleasant appearance, and convenient location. T. Four to six space parking lots are pedestrian and human in character, while over twelve cars become car dominated. The critical number seems to be ten. This marks the breaking point between a human lot and a sea of cars Small lots can be accomplished by breaking large parking areas into sections that serve no more than 10 to 12 cars. Landscape islands and areas should be located to protect cars as well as to break up seas of asphalt. Solar Orientation U. To maximize the warming effect of solar radiation in winter months and maximize shade in the summer months: 1. Utilize deciduous trees for summer shade and winter sun 2. Orient active living spaces to the south. 3. Design building overhangs to shield the high summer sun and expose the area to the lower winter sun. Q: \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGu ide. doc _ 6 _ Nov 1, 2007 25 26 Crime Prevention V. Employ the Concept of Defensible Space to reduce opportunities for crime. "Defensible space" is a term used to describe a series of physical design characteristics that maximizes resident control of behavior -- particularly crime. A residential development designed under defensible space guidelines clearly defines all areas as either public, semi - private or private. In so doing, it determines who has the right to be in each space, and allows residents to be confident in responding to any questionable activity or persons within their complex. Residents are thus encouraged to'extend their private realms, establish their zone of influence which inevitably results in a heightened sense of responsibility towards the care and maintenance of these outdoor areas. W. The following series of techniques can be used to create defensible space and consequently reduce crime. They are summarized in: • Defining zones of privacy (public, semi- private, private) with real or symbolic barriers. This allows residents to identify "strangers ". • Establishing perceived zones of influence (allowing residents to extend their private realms). • Providing surveillance opportunities. Additional design considerations include the following: • Orient windows so that areas vulnerable to crime can be easily surveyed by residents. • Locate mailboxes, garbage collection enclosures and common play areas in such a way that they are easily observed by others. Mailboxes should not be located in dark alcoves out of sight • Establish a system for identifying the location of each residential unit and common facilities at the project entry. • Lighting. More light is not necessarily indicative of better and safer lighting. Lighting levels should be carefully selected and oriented so that areas vulnerable to crime are accented. Provide lighting in areas of heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in areas which are dangerous if unlit, such as stairs and ramps, intersections or where abrupt changes in grade occur. Areas that have high crime potential should be well lighted so that people traveling through them at night may feel secure. • Locate plant materials such as high shrubs so that surveillance of semi - public and semi- private areas is not blocked. This will provide the opportunity for crime. • Use visually open fencing materials such as wrought iron bars or wooden pickets to define space between the street and building. X. Sticker shrubs may discourage crime activities. Low shrubs and umbrella trees (where the canopy is maintained above 5 feet from the ground) will allow surveillance opportunities, hence reducing the potential for criminal behavior. Q : \Townhomes`MFamilyDesGuide.doc 7 _ Nov 1, 2007 II. BUILDING DESIGN Neighborhood Compatibility A. Minimize the appearance of building scale differences between proposed townhouses and existing neighborhood residential units that conform to current zoning. Portions of multi - family developments adjoining areas zoned for single family should maintain a scale, facade and orientation similar to single family uses for compatibility with existing structures. A project site plan and cross - sections should show the footprint of all adjacent structures within 100 feet of the property line to help evaluate compatibility. Fig. 7: Incorporation of elements from neighboring structures into townhouse design. B. Reflect the architectural character of neighboring residences (within 300' on the same street) where it provides a positive example through use of related building features including scale /mass, height, the proportions of entries, windows and other openings (fenestration), color, materials, and shapes. 1. Step the roof on the building perimeter segments to transition between a proposed taller building and an existing residential structure. 2. Replicate or approximate roof forms and pitch found on existing residential structures in the neighborhood. 3. Use window patterns and proportions similar to those on existing residential structures in the neighborhood. 4. Use building facade materials similar to those used on existing residential buildings in the neighborhood. 5. Maintain a consistent relationship to the street (i.e., building setbacks and entryways) as existing buildings. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc 8 _ Nov 1, 2007 27 28 Offsets, changes in materials, and other fine detailing are used to provide architectural interest. o t� i , � Q:\Tovinhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc r— Pitched roofs, building modulation and intimate aurics introduce o singk family scale lb this doise building A trellised entry provides structural tranrrion from pedestrian environment to building Mass end helps sepa-etcpublic from sera private project spaces tot To _7, !1 r J • Fig. 8: Detailing and modulation are used to reduce the scale of the building. Building Entrances C. Avoid the use of exterior stairways to second stories that are visible from the street. Do this: - 9 - Nov 1, 2007 Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 10 - Nov 1, 2007 29 30 Fig. 9: Relationship of entry to street level. D. Townhouse units shall have an individual entrance, with entrance vestibules, canopies or porches to give identity to each unit and provide weather protection. The main entrance to units adjacent to a public street shall be accessed from and face the street. Fig. 10 : Individual entry porch. Building Elevations E. Attached townhouses shall read as a unified building mass, maintaining a common architectural language across the entire length of units. This mass shall be varied by changes in unit orientation, color /material variations, shifts in roof profile, and variation at comer units. Windows, bays, balconies, and other articulation could also be used to express the individuality of each unit. Q:1Townhomes\MFami lyDesGuide.doc _ _ Nov 1, 2007 F. Each building shall incorporate treatments that "complete" the end and corner units, including: 1. an extended base or ground floor units 2. a protrusion, porch or bay that wraps the comer, or 3. an embedded corner tower Fig. 11: Expressing individual units through modulation and roof forms. G. A 3 -story blank wall, even if at the narrow end of a building, does not reflect acceptable design quality. Use architectural relief and fine detailing to break up monotonous surfaces. H. Avoid applied ornamentation which is not related to building structure or architectural design. This would include arbitrary, inconsistent forms and decoration; uninterrupted floating horizontal elements; and large blank surfaces. Windows I. Provide relief, detail, and visual rhythm on the facade with well - proportioned windows. 1. Use window patterns, proportions, and orientation consistent with neighboring residences. 2. Use multiple -pane windows. 3. Provide windows that are designed to create shadows (either deeply recessed or protruding). 4. Use visually significant window elements (i.e. frame dimensions, lintels, casings, sills, and trim. 5. Locate windows so that the occupants from one residence cannot look directly into an adjacent residence. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 12 - Nov 1, 2007 31 32 Roofline Fig. 12: Window form examples. J. Vary the roofline along the building length to reflect individual units. This can be achieved using: - separate roof forms - a combination of roof types, such as shed, gabled and hipped roofs) - gables and dormers `Y`-s' K. Pitched and continuous sloping roof forms are encouraged. flat roofs are used, they should be detailed with parapets or roof overhangs, and detailed with brackets, corbels or other decorative supports. Fig. 13: Roof form variation. Q:1 Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 13 - Nov 1, 2007 Building Massing L. More prominent sites and buildings require a higher level of design quality. This would include projects which are located near hill tops or intersections, or which include large visible building masses. M. Use building and roof modulation and articulation to reduce the appearance of large building masses. 1. Modulate the building facade with features such as porches, balconies, building wall relief, and bay windows. 2. Provide roof elements such as gables, eyebrow roof forms or dormers. 3. Incorporate prominent cornice, soffit, or fascia details that emphasize the top of the building. 4. Provide prominent roof overhangs. 5. Articulate the roof with rafter tails and brackets. Fig. 14: Differentiation of individual units through color, material and roof forms. Material and Colors N. Construct building exteriors of durable and maintainable materials that are attractive even when viewed up close. Use building materials that have texture, pattern, or lend themselves to a high quality of detailing. Appropriate materials are horizontal lap siding, shingles, brick, stone, stucco, ceramic or terra cotta tile. 0. Use a variety of complementary colors on building exteriors. Reserve brightly saturated colors for accent or trim features. Garage Design P. Design garages and carports so that they do not dominate the dwelling's facade. 1. Locate garages and carports behind residences, stepped back from the building's street facade, or provide a side entry (perpendicular to the street). 2. Design driveways to be as narrow as possible and/or shared where possible to Q: \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide. doc - 14 - Nov 1, 2007 33 34 minimize impervious surface and to minimize disruption of the sidewalk and planting strip by curb cuts. 3. Incorporate windows into garage sidewalls whenever they face the street so that they appear to contain habitable space. 4. Incorporate garage door elements which reduce the apparent size of the doors, such as panels and windows. 5. Use materials and colors that match the residence. Fig. 15: Side entry garage with windows. III. LANDSCAPE /SITE TREATMENT Q.\To wn homesMM Famil yDes Gu i d e. doc Landscape Design A. Plants can be used to curtail erosion, to soften the built environment, define or emphasize open space, give privacy, block wind and lessen the effects of solar radiation. B. Although the landscape plan should reflect plants at maturity, landscaping should be considered as a design element harmonizing site plans and building design only to the extent of its effect in five years. This could mean using significantly larger initial plant stock for those project designs which rely heavily upon landscaping to provide relief for building and site design or screen the project. C. Select and site landscape materials to produce a hardy and drought- resistant landscape area consistent with project design. Selection should include consideration of soil type and depth, spacing, exposure to sun and wind, slope and contours of the site, building walls and overhangs, and compatibility of new plant material with existing vegetation to be preserved on the site. - 15 - Nov 1, 2007 D. Install all plant materials to current nursery industry standards. Landscape plant material should be properly guyed and staked to current industry standards. Planting of trees in compacted soils is prohibited unless minimum 12 inch gravel drain sumps are installed under each tree to a minimum of 36 inch depth, or the subgrade soil beyond the planting pit is rototilled to a 9 inch depth to the drip line or edge of planter, whichever is less. E. Plant shrubs used to define spaces or separate environments as a staggered double row whenever possible. This provides the significant depth especially necessary to separate environments such as parking areas from grassed fields and building entries. F. Limit shrub beds to a maximum of two feet wide per typical row of nursery stock plants, in order to minimize barked area and maximize live ground cover. A typical five foot wide barked planting bed for a single row of shrubs is not acceptable. Protection of Existing Trees G. The survival and general health of a tree depends as much on the condition of its root system as it does on the factors influencing the above -ground portion. This vital root system extends out to, and sometimes beyond the tree's drip line (the outermost reach of branches). Any significant disturbance to the root area, such as high surface compaction, root severing, over - watering and/or removal of organic material in which the tree has composted over several years, will almost certainly kill the tree. Tree removal and replacement would be required after a few seasons of progressive deterioration. H. Protect significant trees during construction with a chain -link fence or plastic vinyl construction fence at the drip line. Install the protection fence prior to issuance of grading permit. Removal or destruction of fencing should be cause for a Stop Work Order until reviewed by City staff. Fig. 16: Tree protected with a chain link fence at the drip line during construction. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 16 - Nov 1, 2007 35 36 Design for Screening and Separation I. Full privacy requires an opaque fence or evergreen barrier at least six feet high or above eye level, depending on the angle of view. Noise reduction requires a dense fence (i.e., concrete /masonry) wall or berm in addition to plantings. J. Area separation requires a continuous physical barrier not less than three feet high. A greater degree of separation would require a higher opaque barrier. A separation planting strip could be deciduous or evergreen. K. Provide a privacy fence along side and rear yards if adjoining single family zoning. This should be 6 feet high sight - obscuring wood (or equivalent) fence with exterior materials and colors consistent with building architecture. Outdoor Space Design L. Outdoor space tends to be unusable when it is simply the "leftovers" after buildings are placed on the land. Outdoor spaces should have a definite functional shape, be internally designed to fulfill that function, and be functionally associated with a specific unit or unit group (see "Defensible Space" in Site Plan guidelines). M. Complexes with 10 or more units must provide an on -site recreation space for children with at least one area designed for children aged 5 -12, see TMC 18.52.060. This area should be characterized by interactive group equipment which tests skills. The Parks and Recreation Director should be consulted in the review of acceptable design proposals. N. The child play area should reflect the design elements below: 1. Visually accessible to casual surveillance by passersby and residents. This is a key element in facility safety and generally requires a central location. 2. Provide separation of play areas from general passersby for security. 3. Easy safe access from residence to play area(s) 4. Hard surface areas for wheeled toys and tricycles. 5. Equipment with zones to satisfy the specific sensory and skill needs up to age 12. 6. Use water and sand if limited to two materials. These provide more possibilities for play and fun than all asphalt deserts combined. The ability to move over, under, around or through something.affords a child control. He can change his relationship to it. 7. A child should be able to control his level of involvement with others. Make small sheltered areas for solitary play, larger spaces .for group play. 8. An adjacent sitting area for monitoring the children. Q:1TovmhomesWMFami lyDes Guide.doc - 17 - Nov 1, 2007 Fig. 17: A recreation space for the 5 -12 year old group which facilitates group interaction and skill testing. O. Linkages with existing public trail and park facilities should be made where possible, either through immediate construction or agreement to jointly participate in the coordinated provision of such a linkage at a later date. IV. NIISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES /STREET FURNITURE Lighting A. Reflect project architectural design considerations in all exterior lighting (i.e., distribution, intensity, and pattern). B. Maximum parking area light standard height is 20 feet or the height of the building; whichever is less. Fig. 18: Parking lot lighting. C. Maximum walkway and grounds lighting is 15 feet. Light fixture height is limited to enhance a sense of scale and enclosure for common areas at night. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 18 Nov 1, 2007 37 38 D. Provide all lighting standards with glare cut -off features to avoid off -site spill -over. E. Place fixtures so that light patterns overlap at a height of 7 feet which is sufficiently high to vertically illuminate a person's body. F. At hazardous locations, such as changes of grade, use lower level supplemental lighting or additional overhead units. Where low -level lighting (below 5 feet) is used, fixtures should be placed in such a way that they do not produce glare. Most eye levels occur between 3 feet 8 inches for wheelchair users and 6 feet for standing adults. G. Where walkway lighting is provided primarily by low fixtures provide sufficient peripheral lighting to illuminate the immediate surroundings. Peripheral lighting contributes to a feeling of security in an individual because he can see into his surroundings to determine whether or not passage through an area is safe. Such an area should be lighted so that the object or person may be seen directly or in silhouette. Fencing, Walls, and Screening H. All fencing, walls, and screening should reflect building architecture and be harmonious with adjacent project designs. This includes consideration of proportion, color, texture, and materials. Design perimeter fencing to be attractive from both sides. Service Areas I. Screen all exterior maintenance equipment, including HVAC equipment, electrical equipment, storage tanks, satellite dishes, and garbage dumpsters from off -site and on -site common area view in an architecturally integrated manner. Fig. 19: Dumpsters are sited and screened to minimize prominence. Q :\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 19 - Nov 1, 2007 J. Several small dumpsters adjacent to buildings such as garages are preferable to a single large free standing site. Dumpsters should have solid architectural wall screening only to the container height to minimize its prominence. 0 M Minimum Garbage ['gaup Area _ 1 Garbage pickup area for new development Fig. 20: Garbage collection area screened from public street. K. Recycling containers and areas should conform to King County standards or as amended by Tukwila standards. Street Furniture L. Carry out the project's design concept with the choice of street furniture. M. Foster opportunities for social gathering by residents in shared open spaces by the provision of seating and other amenities. Separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian- oriented areas with the use of bollards and other barrier features. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 20 - Nov 1, 2007 39 4 0 JUNE 24, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES There were no public comments. The Public Hearing was closed. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L07 -024 Code Amendments APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Modifications to zoning and subdivision codes to allow for zero -lot lime townhouse development. LOCATION: Multi- family zones Nora Gierloff gave the presentation for staff. Currently, in the multi - family zones, there are certain standards, such as minimum lot size, lot width and side yard setback requirements. When you combine them you can only build either apartments or condominiums. You cannot have a townhouse that you own between two party walls all the way to the ground with a lot line between you and your neighbor. Townhouses are a popular housing type and there have been some developers who have talked to the City Council expressing an interest in developing this type of housing. The Council is interested in knowing what it would take to develop townhouses in Tukwila. Staff compared Tukwila standards with standards established in other adjacent cities that are developing townhouses. There are two categories of changes that would need to be considered: 1, There are things that would absolutely need to be changed in order to draw the lot line through the buildings. 2. There are other standards that would bring Tukwila's requirements more into line with what other cities are seeing, which could encourage townhouse development. Staff suggested if the Commission agree that some changes should be made, they may want to look at some of Tukwila's standards to see if it would be a competitive place to develop compared to other Cities. Ms. Gierloff went over the proposed changes that are listed in the June 19, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment H. Staff circulated their proposed changes to a number of developers who have expressed an interest in land in Tukwila. Some of the feedback that she has received from developers was incorporated into the proposed changes where appropriate. There was a lot of discussion on the proposed changes and Ms. Gierloff addressed several questions raised by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission deliberated. Commissioner Peterson stated that if there is a need for a secondary fire lane access across single family residential, a gate should be erected for passive protection. He pointed out that there is no way to get one after the fact. Attachment C Commissioner Marvin expressed some concerns about the quality of townhouses, indicating he wants them to be nice. He also requested that construction should not impact residents. Chair Malina suggested it would be a great tool for the Council if staff provided some CAD drawings of a parent lot developed with garages in the front and without garages. He also suggested an example of a single unit with and without garage frontage be provided. It was also suggested that a sidewalk recommendation be prepared for the Council. 1HE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO MODIFY AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CODE AMENDMENTS ON CASE NUMBER L07 -024 APPROVING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPTIONS: 2. Make only those changes to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes necessary to allow platting of individual townhouse Tots and; 3. Make additional changes to the Zoning Code requirements for tiered setbacks, modulation, development coverage and common recreation space; and 4. Modify the Multi- Family Design Guidelines with illustrations and design guidance specific to townhouse development; and 1'Ht: PLANNING COMMISSION HIGHLY RECOMMENDS THAT OPTION FIVE COMES BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT MAY BE ELIMINATED AND GO TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AT SOME POINT. THERE WAS ALSO INTEREST EXPRESSED IN ADDING A FIRE LANE ACCESS, 41 42 NOVEMBER 8, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L07 -024 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Modifications to zoning and subdivision codes to allow for zero -lot line townhouse development LOCATION: Multi - family zones Chair Malina swore in those wishing to provide testimony. Minnie Dhaliwal, Planner gave the presentation for staff. She provided background on the proposed changes and gave an overview of the draft Townhouse Design Guideline Manual, which had not come before the Planning Commission. Staff wanted the Planning Commission to look at and provide input on the final version of the Design Guidelines before going to City Council. Staff also wanted to give developers who had not had the opportunity for comments at a public hearing regarding some of the development standards, a chance to do so. The Townhouse Design Guideline Manual addresses site planning, building design, landscape treatment and miscellaneous issues. As a result of discussion, staff will include language encouraging low grade parking. Mike Overbeck, Developer, explained he is trying to develop property he has on 144 street and is looking at economic factors to develop his parcel. Jim Barker, Architect, is present, to show the Commission some examples of what might happen with the proposed setbacks. Mr. Overbeck asked if a couple of Mr. Barker's examples could be noted in the report. He also asked that the setbacks at the most stringent be 10 feet from the property line and 10 feet going straight up, not having an additional setback for the second and third floor. He pointed out on page 3 of the staff report that the side setbacks, (assuming that the parent lot is viewed as a whole) in townhomes, would mean that the second floor would have to be 20 feet off the property line. Whereas the first floor could be 10 feet off it. He stated that in his seven years of Real Estate background and his searching for examples in King County, he can not find a single example of a zero lot line townhome that has a tiered setback for additional stories. Mr. Overbeck said this is really in reference to lots that border MDR and HDR lots. He stated that HDR lots are 2,000 sq. ft. and with the proposed setback that you really can not build a structure that can be sold. Mr. Overbeck stated he is hoping to add to the community and bring in some home ownership and that there will be a little more pride taken in the neighborhood. He said to make this economically viable at all; he has to build three bedroom homes, at a minimum. He asked if something could be adopted so that as developers they could come up with economically viable products. He stated there could be 25-40% of the lots could be affected by the setbacks. There were samples provided. Jim Barker, Architect, helped Mr. Overbeck design the townhome project in the HDR zone. He said the 20 feet side setbacks really hurt the design. The 20 foot setback does not allow for building 3 bedroom townhomes. Mr. Barker passed around some samples with various setbacks and listed some setbacks in other jurisdictions, asking that the proposed setbacks be reconsidered. Mr. Barker answered questions and provided clarification for the Commission and staff. Gary Singh, Developer, asked why the HDR zone setback has to go higher, stating if that is done you do not have enough room left to build anything. He also stated if the rear setbacks are 10 feet there will be a little more breathing room and it will be more economical. People can spend money and it will help. He also answered questions and provided clarification. REBUTTAL: Minnie Dwaliwal stated that townhomes are a good thing, but she asked, at the same time what we are giving up if you shorten the setback. She said the problem with this property is that it's too narrow and no matter what code you write, there will be some issues with it. With the existing code, landscaping also creates a problem for developers. The suggestion for this particular property is to try and acquire abutting property that may be re- developable. Commissioner Ekberg stated the existing setbacks for apartments are being applied to townhomes and a different look needs to be taken at it. He recommended taking the existing table and making a new table called "MDR basic development standards for townhomes." Then, apply two principles to that table: 1) townhome development adjacent to an existing multi development (an apartment) and 2) a townhome development that would be adjacent to single family lots. He would surmise he would like to see setbacks associated to townhomes adjacent to single family lots larger in size than setbacks associated with townhomes next to apartments. An example was provided. Minnie stated that staff will create a table for the Commission to take a fmal look at in December. Chair Malina asked that staff provide the Commission a broader view of townhomes and what other jurisdictions are doing. Case Number L07 -024 continued to December 13 public hearing. 43 44 DECEMBER 13, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L07 -024 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Modifications to zoning and subdivision codes to allow for zero -lot line townhouse development LOCATION: Multi - family zones Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner, gave the presentation for staff. She stated that this is the third time the case has been heard by the Commission. This third hearing addresses the comparison setbacks of the neighboring jurisdictions. There was a detailed overview and summary of the proposed changes on the new setbacks. Staff s new recommendations for setbacks are listed in the December 5, 2007 staff report. Since the last meeting, staff has added a definition for detached zero lot line dwelling units. Minnie answered several questions during her overview. Mike Overbeck, Developer, gave testimony on the landscape setbacks and the distance between buildings. He handed out and went over, different lot examples, based on different setbacks, to the Commission. He said his goal is to be able to come up with a zero lot line proposal that allows developers to build as many units as the zoning allows. Mr. Overbeck expressed that he is happy that the new setbacks proposed by staff allow developers to build more units. However, he stated that there are two other problems. 1) Additional landscaping setbacks affects the zoning for narrow lots 2) He also said that 20 foot setbacks between three story buildings create a problem using the maximum space and creating an aesthetic appearance. The Commission was asked to strongly consider a ten foot setback on three story buildings in the MDR between buildings so developers can utilize the maximum space. Commissioner Parrish asked Mr. Overbeck what he would propose as an alternative to the 10 foot landscaping setback. Mr. Overbeck stated that he is proposing zero landscaping setbacks for lots that are adjacent to the HDR and MDR. Jim Barker, for the applicant, went over some documentation he provided on landscape setbacks between buildings of different projects he has worked on. Mr. Barker stated that with staff's proposed landscape setbacks developers aren't able to build as many units because the lots are long and narrow. He indicated that other jurisdictions that he works in have landscape requirements. He said as long as the developer provides the total landscaping that is required, they can move landscaping around. The applicant proposes reducing the separation between buildings to ten feet and recommended a total amount of landscaping vs. landscape setbacks. Mr. Barker asked that the landscape setbacks and the separation between buildings are reconsidered. REBUTTAL: Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner addressed the issue the applicant raised regarding the narrow lots. She said the first thing to figure out is how many long narrow lots the applicant is talking about, which she determined was three. She said when the codes are written they are not written for one specific property, however, staff wants to try and accommodate and make it work for developers. She determined that there would not be a problem reducing to the ten foot setback and going with a ten foot building separation up to three stories. Therefore, she said the Planning Commission might want to reconsider allowing the change. Upon further discussion and noting that properties with 10 feet side setbacks had 20 feet between buildings, Minnie suggested that the original recommendation of 20 feet building separation be maintained. Minnie explained Perimeter Landscaping Averaging, which she stated is in the City's code. The applicant could apply for Perimeter Landscaping Averaging and, if they meet the five criteria, the space would be more useable space, as long as, the screening and buffer requirements are met. The option of not having landscaping is not very attractive and would not provide high quality development. Therefore, staff recommends leaving the ten foot landscaping requirement, which is already in the code and amend the building separation to ten feet for up to three story buildings in the MDR and HDR. The landscaping setbacks for four story buildings would remain at 20 feet. Minnie read the five criteria for Perimeter Landscaping Averaging to provide clarity for the Commission. There was discussion and Minnie answered several questions. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission deliberated. Commissioner Arthur stated that the Commissioners do not come up with guidelines to maximize density for a developer for a specific property and he is reluctant to do so. He said it is difficult to review the amount of documentation provided by the applicant at the meeting and be able to proceed. He inquired whether staff had the opportunity to review all of the documentation, and staff confirmed that they had not. Commissioner Arthur stated he was opposed to suggestions to eliminate landscaping. The Planning Commissioners concurred with Commissioner Arthur and were in consensus with staffs recommendations. COMMISSIONER EKBERG MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER L07- 024 BASED ON STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, TO BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. 45 46 Hollycrest Townhomes — Tukwila 2,200 to 3,100 sf lots (w /o roads) 1,300 to 1,650 sf houses 2 bedroom 2 bath Approx. $280,000 22 units, 3 have resold during the last 4 years Townhouse Examples Attachment D Park Pointe on the Hill Condominiums — Tukwila 3,000 sf lots, 1,100 sf houses 2 and 3 bedroom 3 bath Approx. $200,000 9 units, 3 have resold since 1995 Cobblestone Townhomes — Renton 1,500 to 2,600 sf lots w/o roads), 1,400 to 1,800 sf houses 3 bedroom 2 bath Approx. $300,000 47 48 Classic Concepts Townhouses 2,200 to 2,800 SF Lots (including road) 1,400 to1,650 sf houses 3 bedroom 2 bath Approx. $300,000 140'x400' lot 1.3 acres) Cherrywood Lane Small Lot Single Family 3 to 4,000 sf Lots (public roads) 1,700 sf houses 3 bedroom 2 bath Approx. $400,000 '/2 acre communal o en space Examples of some detached zero lot line type of developments: ZERO LOT LIME The site plan for a small zero lot line development shows how staggered. siting, fencing, and detached . garages can help preserve privacy and produce an in. terasting arrangement. L ZERO LOT UKIE Attached zero lot line type of development (These would be considered as townhouses under the proposed code changes) 49 MDR HDR Lowrise 1-4 R-14 RM T R6-12 Max 14.5 Max 22 Min 8 Max 14 Min 14 Max 35 Min 12 Max 24 Min 6 Max 12 30 45 25 + 10 for pitched roof 2 Stories or 30 3 Stories or 35' 35' 35' 3 to 6 4 : V,',1 ..'1.‘40‘C:100.0...6.1N 1 15 , , , , 20' or 25' 14' 180' Along street 16' 41-, ,.,-,, 1 t, ,,kt e !:..5_!:), .9 . ..'"••= 7 , ( ,50 . 7.::i: '.J .... -.9, . 85% 70% 50% 50% 75% 55% 70% 15 15 5' Min, Av. Of adjacent Front access 20', w/Alley 10' 5' 10-15' (0' with design) 20', 10' w/ side or rear parking 20 20 ,. 7 ; '; ';/;'-...., ' 0 ',.. - ...:'_:: , I , .' s .' , 1 "'• ,:;;:''''' , •;!.. 1 .:.i', ,., 45' 7.5 7.5 House 10' Garage 18' 10' 10' 10 10 15 i' 7 i" . ?:',.:; Ai — ,;•:.:-.7;:i-..., 10 10 8' Av, 6' Min 5', 10' when next to SF 3' 5' (0' with design) 10' ;,Y 8' Av 6' Min '..`200OZt il. .t: I.. •■;',. . ,..:.:4•1....:::. 9' Av, 6' Min 11' Av 6' Min 10 10 25' or 15% lot depth 15' 5' 10' (0' with design) 20' :7.,YA.i.v. ,; -..,..- ,, :..` q f20,'(30; fie* 411 -520i30jfekt,', fl •'•; • - !,,-;1:4'i. ..-v:., •:,:,:, :-"400;?25.Ploi shed ic,40. :,'4001 '‘, ifia Average 300 privte 200 private, 75 shared Alley Access Required 50 Standard Density Units/Acre Height Max # Attached Max Build. Length Lot Width Impervious Surface Building Coverage Setbacks: Front - 1st Floor Front - 2nd Front - 3rd Front - 4th 2nd Front - 1st 2nd Front - 2nd 2nd Front - 3rd 2nd Front - 4th Side - 1st Side - 2nd Side - 3rd Side - 4th Rear - 1st Rear - 2nd Rear - 3rd Rear - 4th Recreation Space sf per unit Other Jurisdiction Seattle Renton SeaTac 01 m ia Attachment E • axzwsr. .r' waiiitet40 To: Community Affairs & Parks Committee, Tukwila City Council, Tukwila CC: Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner, City of Tukwila From: Mike Overbeck 4620 S 148 Street Tukwila, WA 98168 RE: Code: 07 -024 Modifications To Zoning Zero Lot Line Townhomes (3 Bdrm) In HDR and MDR Zones Goal: To encourage zoning code changes that enable under reasonable circumstances the construction of actual buildable units that match the number of allowable units for which the land was previously zoned. (For example, HDR = 1 unit per 2,000 sq ft; MDR = 1 unit per 3,000 sq ft) Scope of Lots Affected: There are a total of 203 lots in Tukwila that this zoning modification would affect. Our discussion today is focusing only on the lots less than 80 feet wide (approximately 70 lots or 34.5% of the total lots). Please refer to Chart A. Comments Regarding Land Valuation Criteria For Redevelopable Lots: The current criteria for valuing redevelopable land used by the City of Tukwila Planners do not seem to be in congruence with true market land values. In my opinion, if you take an existing parcel with a Single Family Residence on it and subdivide it using the proposed zoning changes, in most cases, the land would become of greater value than the existing appraised value. Comments Regarding Current Recommendation From DCD Informational Memorandum Dated Jan 23, 2008 And Code Changes Dated Jan 28, 2008: 1) (a) Landscaping setbacks of 10 ft on the side yard's in 11DR zoning make it almost impossible to build a livable 3 bedroom unit in Tukwila's narrow lot's. Please refer to the Site Plan example on Page 2 of the Information Memorandum from the DCD. i) In'this example, the landscaping setbacks are approximately three to five feet (Tukwila's setbacks are 10 feet) ii) There is ten feet between buildings (Tukwila requires 20 for a three story dwelling) iii) There is not a designated play area (Tukwila requires one for ten or more units) Attachment G 53 54 (b) On Page 4 of the DCD Information Memorandum, the proposal calls for a minimum of 400 sq ft of recreation area per unit and it states that 250 sq ft of that has to be private. This requirement is 150 sf larger (or 37% more) than Seattle and SeaTac currently require. Each of these jurisdictions requires just 250 sf of recreation space and only 3 to 5 feet of landscaping. If Tukwila maintains its stricter recreation space requirement of 400 sf to make the units more aesthetically appealing to the inhabitants, it could allow some flexibility in the perimeter landscaping setback requirements. Recommended Solutions: 1) Reduce the landscape setback requirements from 10 ft to 5 ft on the sides and back, leaving the front setback still at 15 feet. These smaller landscape setbacks in conjunction with current recreation space setbacks, building setbacks and modulation requirements should achieve neighborhood aesthetic goals. The aforementioned setbacks are more or equal to adjoining jurisdictions such as Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, Unincorporated King County. 2) Allow a considerable amount of flexibility in perimeter averaging in reference to the landscape setbacks because it becomes challenging on these narrow lots. 3) Keep the recreation requirements at 400square feet to help off set this reduction in Landscaping requirements. Chart A: HDR/MDR Lots Potential Townhouse Sites * +/- 5% accuracy of counted lots * *80 feet wide or less Chart B: Landscape Setback Requirements Front Side Back Seattle 3 3 3 Tukwila 15 10 10 King County * Unincorporated 10 5 5 55 # Lots # Narrow Lots ** HDR Parcels 96 32 HDR Vacant/Redevelopable 26 2 MDR Parcels 71 _ 3 5 MDR Vacant/Redevelopable 10 1 TOTAL PARCELS 203 70., -4 :f 3`4 Sp /o - ' Chart A: HDR/MDR Lots Potential Townhouse Sites * +/- 5% accuracy of counted lots * *80 feet wide or less Chart B: Landscape Setback Requirements Front Side Back Seattle 3 3 3 Tukwila 15 10 10 King County * Unincorporated 10 5 5 55 56 Diagram C: Landscape Requirements Tukwila's Current Landscape Requirements Lot Size: Landscape: Front Yard = Side, Rear Yard = Total Lot Size: Landscape: Total: Lot Size: Landscape: Front Yard = Side, Rear Yard = Total 304 x 69 = 20,976 FY = 15' SY = 10' RY = 10' 15 x 49 = 735 10 x 304 = 3096 10 x 304 = 3096 10 x 49 = 490 = 7417 (35% of total lot) Seattle's Current Landscape Requirements 304 x 69 = 20,976 3' x perimeter 3 x 746 = 2238 = 2238 (11% of total lot) King County's Current Landscape Requirements* *Unincorporated 304 x 69 = 20,976 FY = 10' SY =5' RY = 5' 10 x 49 = 5 x 304 = 5x304= 5 x 49 = 490 1548 1548 245 = 3831 (18% of total lot) Zero Lot Line Townhome Example 4 $ --5 -7401 Lt I No I�� t� I rr j �'li f I i al!I II .; -y - v. tite -IV ; „ ; { I X1111 �ii7�- I�Di F '�' � atil a i�,i F.i! ae r` la 1IIII111111111III1t! :..... - 1111111 1111IIIIIIIIIIII111IfII1IE ii: 11111111F sr tire*i ir o - c ii►l : ICi L ow ill la r � � M a w, swami— . 11•1111111111111111111111V1111 i �'�w n.:r�o { awaiv it riiiiiisi a 57 58 COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 - 5:00 p.m.; Conference Room #3 PRESENT Councilmembers: Joan Hernandez, Chair; Verna Griffin and De'Sean Quinn Staff: Bruce Fletcher, Jack Pace, Minnie Dhaliwal, Rhonda Berry, Derek Speck and Kimberly Matej Guests: Chuck Parrish, Mike Overbeck (resident), Julia Talcott (resident), Christi Sheridan- Cisler (resident), Doug Cisler (resident), Chris Slatt, Steve Beck, Julie Hoyle -Lowe and Jamie Durkin CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hernandez called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. City of Tukwila Community Affairs and Parks Committee II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Modifications to Zoning and Subdivision Codes to Allow for Zero -Lot Line Townhouse Development Staff is requesting a public hearing for modifications to Zoning and Subdivision Codes in order to allow for zero -lot line townhouse development in Tukwila. In summary, City staff is looking at existing land which is zoned multi - family and is seeking to identify opportunities that will provide owner - occupied housing rather than apartment complexes. Redevelopable areas as well as current undeveloped areas in the City's multi - family zones are mostly comprised of long and narrow lots, which lead to some challenges when building residential units. Townhouse development offers the opportunity to build another owner- occupied product besides condominiums Suggested modifications to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes will provide guidelines and set the design standards expected for townhouse development in the Tukwila community. The goal is to publish townhouse design guidelines separate from the existing Multi - Family Design Guidelines which the Council adopted in 1992. Staff stated that several neighboring jurisdictions have implemented townhouse development within their communities. Committee Chair Hernandez would like to hear from other cities that have already adopted zero -lot line townhouse development guidelines. Code changes relative to townhouse development have been to the Planning Commission several times. Staff desires to forward the Planning Commission's recommendations to full Council and hold a public hearing on the changes on February 11, 2008. Staff communicated that several pre - applications have been submitted in anticipation of this ordinance. Committee Chair Hernandez said that although the proposed Townhouse Design Guidelines are a good start in the right direction, she feels that it is not clear in the proposal which amenities are required and which are optional. She would like staff to use clarifying language as well as provide some examples on guideline interpretation and criteria application. Additionally, Councilmember Griffin stated that she would like to see a map of what areas in the City this would be applicable to included in the packet that will go to full Council. Community Affairs & Parks Committee Minutes January 28, 2008 — Page 2 Mike Overbeck, a Tukwila resident and potential developer, distributed an informational memo to attendees. He said that he is looking at townhouse development from a financial standpoint which offers new economic opportunity to potential developers. He has attended several of the Panning Commission meetings where the applicable zoning and subdivision codes have been discussed. He stated that his main focus is that tukwilas suggested landscape setbacks are more stringent than King County, Seattle and other surrounding cities. He would like staff to re- assess the need for such stringent setbacks. Jack Pace recommended that Mr. Overbeck attend the February 11 public hearing so that his comments can be on record. After the hearing, full Council can direct staff to make specific changes. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO FEBRUARY 11 COW FOR PUBLIC REARING. B. Amendment #1 to Contract #03 -058 with Starfire Sports Starfire Sports, who currently has a long -term lease with the City for Fort Dent Park, is requesting an amendment to their existing contract with the City. This amendment will eliminate the softball fields currently located at the Park and add new soccer fields and an accompanying locker room to allow for a practice area that will be subleased to the Major League Soccer (MLS) franchise coming to Seattle. Staff stated that they have been working together with Starfire personnel to create contract language that is fair to both Starfire and the City. In addition to the changes outlined above, a modification has been made to the parking section which Chris Slatt of Starfire believes captures the spirit of what needs to be done; that there is no longer a sole commitment on the side of the City to respond to parking issues. Instead, the City and Starfire agree to work together to identify funding to provide additional parking. Committee Chair Hernandez commented on Section 5.3 and 5.3.2 on page 10 of the current contract, which outlines the City's obligations relating to parking. She recommended that these sections be reviewed to ensure that all clauses regarding parking are consistent with proposed changes. Mr. Slatt discussed at length the conversion that will take place if this amendment is approved. The information he provided included: turf and grass fields, of which the grass field would have very limited public access due to wear and tear; and the creation of mod fields. He stated that the MLS group intends to spend approximately $2 million on the changes. He also commented that the conversion yvill not increase parking requirements. Mr. Slatt also passed around an additional proposed contract amendment that will be brought to full Council (Section 5.12). This change will allow Tukwila residents to be exempt from parking fees during Starfire special events with proof of residency. Some Committee members commented that it might be beneficial for Starfire to show their presentation at full Council. It was noted, however, that the majority of Council has already seen the presentation. Due to the proposed elimination of the softball fields at Fort Dent, the Committee expressed a desire and need for softball field users to have an opportunity to responded to and comment on this contract amendment at both the February 11 COW and February 18 Regular meeting (or other such regular meeting to which this items may be assigned). UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO FEBRUARY 11 COW. III. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 6:39 p.m. Next meeting: Monday, February 11, 2008 — 5:00 p.m. — Conference Room #3 Mi , to -\ M. Committee Chair Approval 59 To: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: x Ciz of Tukwila Department of Community Development INFORMATION MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Community Affairs and s Committee Jack Pace, DCD Director • January 23, 2008 Townhouse Zoning and Su ivision Code Amendments ISSUE Should the Zoning and Subdivision Codes be changed to allow for development of zero -lot line /fee simple townhomes on individual lots (lot lines would run through the buildings)? Due to MDR and HDR development standards such as minimum lot sizes and side yard setback requirements only condominiums or apartments can be built in our multi - family zones, though they could be built in townhouse form. BACKGROUND DCD has periodically been approached by developers interested in building zero -lot line or fee simple townhomes. Developers think that there is a stronger market for this type of housing on individually owned lots rather than as condominiums and the insurance requirements for condominiums make many small projects unfeasible. Providing for an additional type of housing ownership (townhouses on individual zero -lot line lots) would expand the housing options of Tukwila's residents and provide multi - family property owners an alternative to apartment development. In addition to the technical changes needed to create individual townhouse lots changes to Tukwila's bulk and coverage limitations may encourage the market to provide townhouses. Because townhouses are typically significantly larger than stacked apartments and condominiums under the current code requirements fewer townhouse units than apartments could be built on a given site, making them a less attractive development option. The CAP discussed the proposal on April 10 and moved it to the COW without a recommendation. They discussed a range of issues including the necessity for common children's play areas, concern about blank walls and the environmental impacts of dense development. The COW discussed the issue on May 14 and expressed concern about assuring adequate recreation and open space in future developments; the need for flexibility in offering a variety of housing options in the City; the assurance that privacy will be considered for adjoining single family homes that may be affected by tiered setback requirements; and the importance of a design review process that involves the public. MD Page 1 01 -23 -2008 Q: \Townhomes \CAP- 01 -28 -08 Townhouse.DOC Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director The Planning Commission held a hearing on June 28 and recommended a few changes to the staff's proposal. Specifically they recommended tailoring the Multi- Family Design Guidelines to address the townhouse building type and requiring design review for all townhouse projects by the Board of Architectural Review. Subsequently the Fire Department requested two changes to improve fire response: limiting the number of attached townhouse units to four (this would only affect HDR since MDR is limited to fourplexes already) and requiring gates in private yard fences. The second hearing was held on November 8, 2007, to finalize the Townhouse Design Guidelines. Based on testimony received at the hearing, the Planning Commission asked staff to review the setback requirements of adjoining jurisdictions, and continued the hearing until December 13, 2007. After comparing the setback requirements of adjoining cities, staff recommended not requiring a tiered setback for townhouses that are not adjacent to LDR zone. Also, a definition of detached zero lot line dwelling units was added and these were listed as permitted use in MDR zone. See Attachment A for the Planning Commission's recommended changes to Zoning and Subdivision Codes to allow for zero - lot line townhouses. ANALYSIS Due to Tukwila's prevailing pattern of narrow, deep lots in most infill situations townhouses would be perpendicular to the street, rather than the traditional row house with stoops along the street and alley access behind. Below is an example of a typical market driven design for ten units on an 80'x240' infill lot showing the dashed individual parcel lines through the buildings. , i 7.5. ,Pemv • C41.+ cv 1 See Attachment B for examples of townhouses in Tukwila and Renton. See Attachment C for a comparison of Tukwila's current multi - family standards to townhouse standards in other cities. The shaded cells on the chart are areas where staff is suggesting changes. Staff circulated the discussion of proposed changes to a few developers who have expressed an interest in townhouse development in Tukwila. Their feedback has been used to shape the Planning Commission recommended changes which are grouped by subject MD Page 2 01 -23 -08 Q: \Townhomes \CAP- 01 -28 -08 Townhouse.DOC area and discussed below. These include both the minimum changes necessary to allow platting of townhouse lots as well as additional changes that would bring Tukwila's standards closer to prevailing market driven development patterns. Subdivision Code The recommended approach to the subdivision process is to follow Seattle's example in treating townhouse and cottage housing projects similarly to a binding site plan. This would apply lot size, lot width, setback and landscape standards to the original "parent" parcel rather than the "unit" lots that contain the individual townhomes. This would result in the same treatment adjacent to the neighboring properties while allowing a different ownership pattern. Other than that change both the short plat and subdivision platting process could follow the standard procedure with preliminary approval, infrastructure construction, final approval and then building permit. We would allow the building foundations to be constructed prior to final approval along with the rest of the site improvements so that the lot lines could be drawn accurately through the existing common walls. If the buildings are constructed after the plat sometimes field conditions require boundary line adjustments to meet the as built conditions. MDR/HDR Zoning Standards In addition to the technical changes needed to allow platting of townhouse sized lots the Planning Commission recommends the following modifications to the bulk and coverage requirements to allow for a more market driven development pattern and density closer to what is achievable for stacked apartments or condominiums. • Setbacks Setback requirements should be applied to the parent lot rather than the unit lots since their purpose is to protect neighboring properties. The front and second front setbacks would not increase for the third or fourth floors unless the adjacent property was zoned LDR. The side and rear setbacks would not increase for the second and third floor but would increase only for fourth floor or if adjacent to LDR. This would still provide a buffer to the adjacent property while allowing for consistent floor plans for the townhouses. A new building separation standard would be adopted for townhouse buildings of 10' for 2 story buildings and 20' for 3 and 4 story buildings. • Modulation Because townhouse units are generally narrow the existing modulation requirements would pose a significant constraint on the design. In exchange for shorter allowable building lengths (80' in MDR and 125' in HDR) the 4 foot modulation requirements would not be increased for three and four story townhouse buildings. MD Page 3 01 -23 -08 Q: \Townhomes \CAP- 01 -28 -08 Townhouse.DOC • Development Coverage It is not possible to achieve zoned density with a typical townhouse product under the 50% development coverage limitation. Townhouses are typically twice as large as an average apartment usually with 2 to 3 bedrooms and a garage. The recommended 75% development coverage would be similar to the impervious surface limitations common in other jurisdictions. • Recreation Space Setback areas that are part of a private yard for an individual unit would be allowed to count toward the 400 sq. ft. per unit recreation space requirement as long as it measured at least 10' on all sides. Since the small private yards are generally fenced the height of opaque fences along street frontages should be limited to 4 feet, with lattice or other open material allowed up to 6 feet. Private yard that includes side yard setback area The current requirement for at least 25% of the recreation space to be devoted to shared children's play areas would start with developments of ten or more lots. This would ensure that the play area is large enough to be usable and that there is a critical mass of owners to share the burden of maintenance and liability insurance. • Detached zero -lot line units The townhouse definition covers attached units, but there has been interest to develop detached compact single family units in MDR zone. Staff is recommending adding a definition of detached zero lot line dwelling units and permitting these type of developments in MDR zone subject to design review approval and meeting the recreation space requirements of a townhouse. The zero lot line type of development pattern allows houses to be constructed immediately adjacent to one side lot line. (no side yard setback), coupled with an easement on the adjacent lot for maintenance purposes. This helps preserve privacy and usable yard space, especially in small lot areas. MD Page 4 01 -23 -08 Q: \Townhomes \CAP- 01 -28 -08 Townhouse.DOC e Design Review The existing Multi- Family Design Guidelines booklet has a number of sections that may not be applicable to townhouses, such as the common space guidelines, parking lot standards and building separation requirements. In addition it does not provide illustrations that reflect townhouse density or building types. See Attachment E for the proposed townhouse guidelines with illustrations. RECOMMENDATION Forward the Planning Commission recommendations to the full Council for a public hearing on February 11, 2008 and then adoption on March 3, 2008. ATTACHMENTS: A. Planning Commission meeting minutes from June 28 Nov 8 and Dec 13 meetings. B. Townhouse Examples C. Comparison of Tukwila's current MDR and HDR standards to townhouse standards in other cities D. Proposed Code Amendments in Strikeout/Underline Format E. Draft Townhouse Design Guidelines MD Page 5 01 -23 -08 Q: \Townhomes \CAP- 01 -28 -08 Townhouse.DOC JUNE 24, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L07 -024 Code Amendments APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Modifications to zoning and subdivision codes to allow for zero -lot line townhouse development. LOCATION: Multi- family zones Nora Gierloff gave the presentation for staff. Currently, in the multi - family zones, there are certain standards, such as minimum lot size, lot width and side yard setback requirements. When you combine them you can only build either apartments or condominiums. You cannot have a townhouse that you own between two party walls all the way to the ground with a lot line between you and your neighbor. Townhouses are a popular housing type and there have been some developers who have talked to the City Council expressing an interest in developing this type of housing. The Council is interested in knowing what it would take to develop townhouses in Tukwila. Staff compared Tukwila standards with standards established in other adjacent cities that are developing townhouses. There are two categories of changes that would need to be considered: 1. There are things that would absolutely need to be changed in order to draw the lot line through the buildings. 2. There are other standards that would bring Tukwila's requirements more into line with what other cities are seeing, which could encourage townhouse development. Staff suggested if the Commission agree that some changes should be made, they may want to look at some of Tukwila's standards to see if it would be a competitive place to develop compared to other Cities. Ms. Gierloff went over the proposed changes that are listed in the June 19, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment H. Staff circulated their proposed changes to a number of developers who have expressed an interest in and in Tukwila. Some of the feedback that she has received from developers was incorporated into the proposed changes where appropriate. There was a lot of discussion on the proposed changes and Ms. Gierloff addressed several questions raised by the Planning Commission. There were no public comments. The Public Hearing was closed. The Planning Commission deliberated. Commissioner Peterson stated that if there is a need for a secondary fire lane access across single family residential, a gate should be erected for passive protection. He pointed out that there is no way to get one after the fact. Attachment A Commissioner Marvin expressed some concerns about the quality of townhouses, indicating he wants them to be nice. He also requested that construction should not impact residents. Chair Malina suggested it would be a great tool for the Council if staff provided some CAD drawings of a parent lot developed with garages in the front and without garages. He also suggested an example of a single unit with and without garage frontage be provided. It was also suggested that a sidewalk recommendation be prepared for the Council. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO MODIFY AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CODE AMENDMENTS ON CASE NUMBER L07 -024 APPROVING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPTIONS: 2. Make only those changes to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes necessary to allow platting of individual townhouse lots and; 3. Make additional changes to the Zoning Code requirements for tiered setbacks, modulation, development coverage and common recreation space; and 4. Modify the Multi- Family Design Guidelines with illustrations and design guidance specific to townhouse development; and THE PLANNING COMMISSION HIGHLY RECOMMENDS THAT OPTION FIVE COMES BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT MAY BE ELIMJNATED AND GO TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AT SOME POINT. THERE WAS ALSO INTEREST EXPRESSED IN ADDING A FIRE LANE ACCESS. NOVEMBER 8, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L07 -024 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Modifications to zoning and subdivision codes to allow for zero -lot line townhouse development LOCATION: Multi - family zones Chair Malina swore in those wishing to provide testimony. Minnie Dhaliwal, Planner gave the presentation for staff. She provided background on the proposed changes and gave an overview of the draft Townhouse Design Guideline Manual, which had not come before the Planning Commission. Staff wanted the Planning Commission to look at and provide input on the final version of the Design Guidelines before going to City Council. Staff also wanted to give developers who had not had the opportunity for comments at a public hearing regarding some of the development standards, a chance to do so. The Townhouse Design Guideline Manual addresses site planning, building design, landscape treatment and miscellaneous issues. As a result of discussion, staff will include language encouraging low grade parking. Mike Overbeck, Developer, explained he is trying to develop property he has on 144 street and is looking at economic factors to develop his parcel. Jim Barker, Architect, is present, to show the Commission some examples of what might happen with the proposed setbacks. Mr. Overbeck asked if a couple of Mr. Barker's examples could be noted in the report. He also asked that the setbacks at the most stringent be 10 feet from the property line and 10 feet going straight up, not having an additional setback for the second and third floor. He pointed out on page 3 of the staff report that the side setbacks, (assuming that the parent lot is viewed as a whole) in townhomes, would mean that the second floor would have to be 20 feet off the property line. Whereas the first floor could be 10 feet off it. He stated that in his seven years of Real Estate background and his searching for examples in King County, he can not find a single example of a zero lot line townhome that has a tiered setback for additional stories. Mr. Overbeck said this is really in reference to lots that border MDR and HDR lots. He stated that HDR lots are 2,000 sq. ft. and with the proposed setback that you really can not build a structure that can be sold. Mr. Overbeck stated he is hoping to add to the community and bring in some home ownership and that there will be a little more pride taken in the neighborhood. He said to make this economically viable at all; he has to build three bedroom homes, at a minimum. He asked if something could be adopted so that as developers they could come up with economically viable products. He stated there could be 25-40% of the lots could be affected by the setbacks. There were samples provided. Jim Barker, Architect, helped Mr. Overbeck design the townhome project in the HDR zone. He said the 20 feet side setbacks really hurt the design. The 20 foot setback does not allow for building 3 bedroom townhomes. Mr. Barker passed around some samples with various setbacks and listed some setbacks in other jurisdictions, asking that the proposed setbacks be reconsidered. Mr. Barker answered questions and provided clarification for the Commission and staff. Gary Singh, Developer, asked why the HDR zone setback has to go higher, stating if that is done you do not have enough room left to build anything. He also stated if the rear setbacks are 10 feet there will be a little more breathing room and it will be more economical. People can spend money and it will help. He also answered questions and provided clarification. REBUTTAL: Minnie Dwaliwal stated that townhomes are a good thing, but she asked, at the same time what we are giving up if you shorten the setback. She said the problem with this property is that it's too narrow and no matter what code you write, there will be some issues with it. With the existing code, landscaping also creates a problem for developers. The suggestion for this particular property is to try and acquire abutting property that may be re- developable. Commissioner Ekberg stated the existing setbacks for apartments are being applied to townhomes and a different look needs to be taken at it. He recommended taking the existing table and making a new table called "MDR basic development standards for townhomes." Then, apply two principles to that table: 1) townhome development adjacent to an existing multi development (an apartment) and 2) a townhome development that would be adjacent to single family lots. He would surmise he would like to see setbacks associated to townhomes adjacent to single family lots larger in size than setbacks associated with townhomes next to apartments. An example was provided. Minnie stated that staff will create a table for the Commission to take a final look at in December. Chair Malina asked that staff provide the Commission a broader view of townhomes and what other jurisdictions are doing. Case Number L07 -024 continued to December 13 public hearing. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L07 -024 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Modifications to zoning and subdivision codes to allow for zero -lot line townhouse development LOCATION: Multi- family zones Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner, gave the presentation for staff. She stated that this is the third time the case has been heard by the Commission. This third hearing addresses the comparison setbacks of the neighboring jurisdictions. There was a detailed overview and summary of the proposed changes on the new setbacks. Staff's new recommendations for setbacks are listed in the December 5, 2007 staff report. Since the last meeting, staff has added a definition for detached zero lot line dwelling units. Minnie answered several questions during her overview. Mike Overbeck, Developer, gave testimony on the landscape setbacks and the distance between buildings. He handed out and went over, different lot examples, based on different setbacks, to the Commission. He said his goal is to be able to come up with a zero lot line proposal that allows developers to build as many units as the zoning allows. Mr. Overbeck expressed that he is happy that the new setbacks proposed by staff allow developers to build more units. However, he stated that there are two other problems. 1) Additional landscaping setbacks affects the zoning for narrow lots 2) He also said that 20 foot setbacks between three story buildings create a problem using the maximum space and creating an aesthetic appearance. The Commission was asked to strongly consider a ten foot setback on three story buildings in the MDR between buildings so developers can utilize the maximum space. Commissioner Parrish asked Mr. Overbeck what he would propose as an alternative to the 10 foot landscaping setback. Mr. Overbeck stated that he is proposing zero landscaping setbacks for lots that are adjacent to the HDR and MDR. Jim Barker, for the applicant, went over some documentation he provided on landscape setbacks between buildings of different projects he has worked on. Mr. Barker stated that with staff's proposed landscape setbacks developers aren't able to build as many units because the lots are long and narrow. He indicated that other jurisdictions that he works in have landscape requirements. He said as long as the developer provides the total landscaping that is required, they can move landscaping around. The applicant proposes reducing the separation between buildings to ten feet and recommended a total amount of landscaping vs. landscape setbacks. Mr. Barker asked that the landscape setbacks and the separation between buildings are reconsidered. REBUTTAL: Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner addressed the issue the applicant raised regarding the narrow lots. She said the first thing to figure out is how many long narrow lots the applicant is talking about, which she determined was three. She said when the codes are written they are not written for one specific property, however, staff wants to try and accommodate and make it work for developers. She determined that there would not be a problem reducing to the ten foot setback and going with a ten foot building separation up to three stories. Therefore, she said the Planning Commission might want to reconsider allowing the change. Minnie explained Perimeter Landscaping Averaging, which she stated is in the City's code. The applicant could apply for Perimeter Landscaping Averaging and, if they meet the five criteria, the space would be more useable space, as long as, the screening and buffer requirements are met. The option of not having landscaping is not very attractive and would not provide high quality development. Therefore, staff recommends leaving the ten foot landscaping requirement, which is already in the code and amend the building separation to ten feet for up to three story buildings in the MDR and HDR. The landscaping setbacks for four story buildings would remain at 20 feet. Minnie read the five criteria for Perimeter Landscaping Averaging to provide clarity for the Commission. There was discussion and Minnie answered several questions. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission deliberated. Commissioner Arthur stated that the Commissioners do not come up with guidelines to maximize density for a developer for a specific property and he is reluctant to do so. He said it is difficult to review the amount of documentation provided by the applicant at the meeting and be able to proceed. He inquired whether staff had the opportunity to review all of the documentation, and staff confirmed that they had not. Commissioner Arthur stated he was opposed to suggestions to eliminate landscaping. The Planning Commissioners concurred with Commissioner Arthur and were in consensus with staffs recommendations. COMMISSIONER EKBERG MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER L07- 024 BASED ON STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, TO BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Hollycrest Townhomes — Tukwila 2,200 to 3,100 sf lots (w /o roads) 1,300 to 1,650 sf houses 2 bedroom 2 bath Approx. $280,000 22 units, 3 have resold during the last 4 years Townhouse Examples Attachment B Park Pointe on the Hill Condominiums — Tukwila 3,000 sf lots, 1,100 sf houses 2 and 3 bedroom 3 bath Approx. $200,000 9 units, 3 have resold since 1995 Cobblestone Townhomes — Renton 1,500 to 2,600 sf lots w/o roads), 1,400 to 1,800 sf houses 3 bedroom 2 bath Approx. $300,000 Attachment B Classic Concepts Townhouses 2,200 to 2,800 SF Lots (including road) 1,400 to1,650 sf houses 3 bedroom 2 bath Approx. $300,000 140'x400' lot (1.3 acres) Cherrywood Lane Small Lot Single Family 3 to 4,000 sf Lots (public roads) 1,700 sf houses 3 bedroom 2 bath Approx. $400,000 '/2 acre communal open space Attachment B Examples of some detached zero lot line type of developments: i 'Jiii n 1, • ZERO LOT LINE The site plan for a small zero lot line development shows how staggered siting, fencing, and detached garages can help preserve privacy and produce an in• teresting arrangement. Attached zero lot line type of development (These would be considered as townhouses under the proposed code changes) Standard Density Units /Acre Height Max # Attached Max Build. Length Lot Width Impervious Surface Building Coverage Setbacks: Front - 1st Floor Front - 2nd Front - 3rd Front - 4th 2nd Front - 1st 2nd Front - 2nd 2nd Front - 3rd 2nd Front - 4th Side - 1st Side - 2nd Side - 3rd Side - 4th Rear - 1st Rear - 2nd Rear - 3rd Rear - 4th Recreation Space sf per unit Other Jurisdiction Tukwila MDR HDR Seattle Renton SeaTac Olympia 10 10 Max 14.5 Max 22 30 45 15 15 20 20 7.5 7.5 10 10 10 10 Lowrise 1 -4 25+ 10 for pitched roof 50% 5' Min, Av. Of adjacent 8' Av, 6' Min 8' Av, 6' Min 9' Av, 6' Min 11' Av, 6' Min 25' or 15% lot depth Average 300 private R -14 Min 8 Max 14 2 Stories or 30' 3 to 6 115' 20' or 25' 50% Front access 20', w /Alley 10' House 10' Garage 18' 5', 10' when next to SF 15' RM Min 14 Max 35 3 Stories or 35' 14' 85% 75% 5' 10' 3' 5' T Min 12 Max 24 35' 180' Along street 55% 10 -15' (0' with design) 5' (0' with design) 10' (0' with design) 200 private, 75 shared Alley Access Required R6 -12 Min 6 Max 12 35' 4 16' 70% 70% 20', 10' w/ side or rear parking 10' 10' 20' Attachment C Proposed Zoning and Subdivision Code Changes 17.12.010 Scope Any land being divided into nine or fewer parcels, lots, unit lots, tracts or sites for the purpose of sale, lease, or gift, any one of which is less than 20 acres in size, shall meet the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 1833 S` 1(part), 1998) 17.12.070 Unit lot short plats A. Sites developed or proposed to be developed with townhouses, cottage housing. compact single family, or zero -lot line units may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. Any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. B. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. C. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common play areas), and other similar features, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. D. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. E. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. Construction of townhouse dwelling foundations may commence prior to final short plat approval, provided: 1. The proposed short plat has received preliminary approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed to assure construction of required public improvements; 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor impair City enforcement of conditions of subdivision approval; 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued until final short plat approval is granted. 17.14.010 Scope Any land being divided into 10 or more parcels, lots, unit lots, tracts or sites, for the purpose of sale or gift, any one of which is less than 20 acres in size, or any land which has been divided under the short subdivision procedures within five years and is not eligible for further short platting pursuant to Section 17.12.010 shall conform to the procedures and requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 1833 § .1(part), 1998) Page 1 of 9 Attachment D 17.14.060 Unit lot subdivisions A. Sites developed or proposed to be developed with townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, or zero -lot line units may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. Any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. B. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. C. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common play areas), and other similar features, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. D. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. E. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. Construction of townhouse dwelling foundations may commence prior to final plat approval, provided: 1. The proposed plat has received preliminary approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed to assure construction of required public improvements-, 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor impair City enforcement of conditions of subdivision approval-, 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued until final plat approval is granted. 18.06.537 Lot, Parent "Lot, parent" means the initial lot from which unit lots are subdivided for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, zero -lot line units, or any combination of the above types of residential development. 18.06.542 Lot, Unit "Lot, unit" means one (1) of the individual lots created from the subdivision of a parent lot for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, zero -lot line units, or any combination of the above types of residential development. 18.06.768 Short Subdivision "Short subdivision" means the division of land into nine or less lots, unit lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions. Page 2 of 9 Lot area, minimum 8,000 sq. ft. (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Lot area per unit (multi - family) 3,000 sq. ft. Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Setbacks, minimum: Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front - 1st floor 15 feet 18.06.813 Subdivision "Subdivision" means the division or redivision of land into ten or more lots, unit lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions. 18.06.8XX Townhouse "Townhouse" means a form of ground- related housing in which individual dwelling units are attached along at least one (1) common wall to at least one (1) other dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit occupies space from the ground to the roof and has direct access to private open space. No portion of a unit may occupy space above or below another unit, except that townhouse units may be constructed over a common shared parking garage, provided the garage is underground. 18.06.8XX Detached Zero Lot Line units A development pattern of detached dwelling units constructed immediately adjacent to one side lot line (i.e. no side yard setback), coupled with an easement on the adjacent lot in order to maintain separation between structures. The easement will provide access rights for maintenance purposes, help preserve privacy and usable yard space. 18.12.070 Basic Development Standards Development within the Medium Density Residential District shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: 18.12.020 Permitted Uses A. The following uses are permitted outright within the Medium Density District, subject to compliance with all other applicable requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code: 1. Dwelling - One detached single- family dwelling per lot. 2. Dwelling - Multi- family duplex, triplex, of fourplex units or townhouse up to four attached units. 3. Detached zero lot line units. 3:4. Animal veterinary, including associated temporary indoor boarding; access to an arterial required. 4.5. Day care centers. 3:6. Public parks, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds, but not including amusement parks, golf courses, or commercial recreation. 6,7. Shelters. B. In Commercial Redevelopment Areas 1, 2, and 4 (see Figures 18 -9 or 18 -10), the uses and development standards of the adjacent commercial zone are permitted and shall apply, subject to the specific criteria and procedures defined in TMC 18.60.060. (Ord. 1976 §20, 2001: Ord. 1865 §9, 1999: Ord. 1758 § ] (part), 1995) MDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Page 3 of 9 • Front - 2nd floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Second front - 1st floor 7.5 feet • Second front - 2nd floor 10 feet • Second front - 3rd floor 15 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Sides - 1st floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Sides - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 1st floor 10 feet • Rear - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) Townhouse building separation, minimum • 1 and 2 story buildings 10 feet • 3 story buildings 20 feet Height, maximum 30 feet Landscape requirements (minimum): See Landscape, Recreation, Recycling /Solid Waste Space requirements chapter for further requirements Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front(s) 15 feet • Sides 10 feet • Rear 10 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum (75% for townhouses) Recreation space 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. min.) Off - street parking: • Residential See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations. • Accessory dwelling unit See Accessory Use section of this chapter • Other uses See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations (Ord. 1976 §23, 2001; Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995) 18.14.020 Permitted Uses A. The following uses are permitted outright within the High- Density Residential District, subject to compliance with all other applicable requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 1. Animal veterinary, including associated temporary indoor boarding; access to an arterial required. 2. Convalescent and nursing homes for not more than 12 patients. 3. Day care centers. 4. Manufactured/mobile home park, meeting the following requirements: a. the development site shall comprise not less than two contiguous acres; b. overall development density shall not exceed eight dwelling units per acre; c. vehicular access to individual dwelling units shall be from the interior of the park; and d. emergency access shall be subject to the approval of the Tukwila Fire Department. Page 4 of 9 Lot area, minimum 9,600 sq. ft. (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Lot area per unit (multi - family, except senior citizen housing) 2,000 sq. ft. Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Setbacks, minimum: Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front - 1st floor 15 feet • Front - 2nd floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Front — 4th floor 45 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Second front -1st floor 7.5 feet • Second front - 2nd floor 10 feet • Second front - 3rd floor 15 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Second front — 4th floor 22.5 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Sides - 1st floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Sides - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Sides — 4th floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 1st floor 10 feet • Rear - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear — 4th floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) Townhouse buildin l se . aration minimum • 1 and 2 story building 10 feet 5. Dwelling - One detached single - family dwelling per lot 6. Dwelling — multi - family. 7. Dwelling — townhouse up to four attached units. 78. Libraries, museums or art galleries (public). 8.9 Parks, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds (public) but not including amusement parks, golf courses, or commercial recreation. 9.10 Shelters. B. In Commercial Redevelopment Area 3 (see Figures 18 -9 or 18 -10), the uses and development standards of the adjacent commercial zone are permitted and shall apply, subject to the specific criteria and procedures defined in the BAR chapter of this code, TMC 18.60.060. (Ord. 1976 §24, 2001; Ord. 1865 §13, 1999; Ord. 1830 §2, 1998; Ord. 1758 § 1(part), 1995) 18.14.070 Basic Development Standards Development within the High Density Residential District shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: HDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Page 5 of 9 • 3 and 4 story buildings 20 feet Height, maximum 45 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum (except senior citizen housing, 75% for townhouses) Landscape requirements (minimum): See Landscape, Recreation, Recycling /Solid Waste Space requirements chapter for further requirements Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front(s) 15 feet • Sides 10 feet • Rear 10 feet Recreation space 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. min.) Recreation space, senior citizen housing 100 sq. ft. per dwelling unit Off - street parking: • Residential (except senior citizen housing) See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations. • Accessory dwelling unit See Accessory Use section of this chapter • Other uses, including senior citizen housing See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations 18.50.070 Yard Regulations A. Fences, walls, poles, posts, and other customary yard accessories, ornaments, furniture may be permitted in any yard subject to height limitations and requirements limiting obstruction of visibility to the detriment of public safety. The height of opaque fences along street frontages is limited to 4 feet, with lattice or other open material allowed up to 6 feet. B. In the case of through lots, unless the prevailing front yard pattern on adjoining lots indicates otherwise, front yards shall be provided on all frontages. C. Where the front yard that would normally be required on a lot is not in keeping with the prevailing yard pattern, the DCD may waive the requirement for the normal front yard and substitute therefore a special yard requirement which shall not exceed the average of the yards provided on adjacent lots. D. In the case of corner lots, a front yard of the required depth shall be provided in accordance with the prevailing yard pattern, and a second front yard of half the depth required generally for front yards in the district shall be provided on the other frontage. E. In the case of corner lots with more than two frontages, the DCD shall determine the front yard requirements, subject to the following conditions: 1. At least one front yard shall be provided having the full depth required generally in the district; 2. The second front yard shall be the minimum set forth in the district; 3. In the case of through lots and corner lots, there will be no rear yards but only front and side yards; 4. In the case of through lots, side yards shall extend from the rear lines of front yards required. In the case of corner lots, yards remaining after full and halfdepth front yards have been established shall be considered side yards. (See Figure 18 - 4.) (Ord. 17 58 §] (part). 199 5 ) Page 6 of 9 For all buildings except as described below: MDR....50 ft HDR ....50 ft Maximum building length with bonus for modulating off -sets: For structures with a maximum building height of 2 stories or 25 ft., whichever is less, and having horizontal modulation or a minimum vertical change in roof profile of 4 feet at least every two units or 50 feet, whichever is less: For structures with a building height over 2 stories or 25 ft., whichever is less, with a horizontal and vertical modulation of 4 ft. or an 8 ft. modulation in either direction: For townhouse structures with horizontal modulation or a minimum MDR....100 ft HDR ....200 ft MDR....100 ft HDR ....200 ft MDR....80 ft vertical change in roof profile of 4 feet at least every two units or HDR ....125 ft 50 feet, whichever is less: 18.50.083 Maximum Building Length In the MDR and HDR zones, the maximum building length shall be as follows: Modulation shall be required for every 2 units or 50 feet, whichever is less, as measured along the building's length. Grouping of offsets in maximum four unit modules may be permitted only with BAR approval (see Figure 18 -5). (Ord. 1758 §.1(part), 1995) 18.50.085 Maximum Percent Development Area Coverage In the MDR and HDR zones the maximum percent development area coverage shall be 50 %, except for senior citizen housing developments in HDR. If the senior citizen housing building is converted to regular apartments the 50% limit must be met. Townhouse developments are allowed up to a maximum of 75% development area coverage. (Ord. 1830 §28, 1998. Ord. 1758' 1(part). 1995) 18.52.060 Recreation Space Requirements In all MDR and HDR zoning districts, any proposed multiple - family structure, complex or development shall provide on the premises and for the use of the occupants a minimum amount of recreation space according to the following provisions: 1. Required Area. a. For each proposed dwelling unit in the multiple - family development and detached zero lot line type of development, a minimum of 400 square feet (100 square feet for senior citizen housing) of recreation space shall be provided. Any multiple - family structure, complex or development shall provide a minimum of 1,000 square feet of total recreation space. b. Townhouse units shall provide at least 250 sf of the 400 sf of recreation space as private, ground level open space measuring not less than 10 feet in any dimension. c. The front, side and rear yard setback areas required by the applicable zoning district shall not qualify as recreation space unless portions are incorporated into private open space with a minimum dimension of 10 feet on all sides. 2. Indoor or Covered Space. a. No more than 50% of the required recreation space may be indoor or covered space in standard multi - family developments. Senior citizen housing must have at least 20% indoor or covered space. Page 7 of 9 b. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of extensively improved indoor recreation space provided. Interior facility improvements would include a full range of weight machines, sauna, hot tub, large screen television and the like. 3. Uncovered Space. a. A minimum of 50% of the total required recreation space shall be open or uncovered, up to 100% of the total requirement may be in open or uncovered recreation space in standard multi - family developments. Senior citizen housing allows up to 80% of recreation space to be outdoors and has no minimum outdoor space requirement. b. Recreation space shall not exceed a 4% slope in any direction unless it is determined that the proposed space design clearly facilitates and encourages the anticipated use as endorsed by the Director. c. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum credit of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of outdoor pool and surrounding deck area. 4. General Requirements. a. Multiple - family complexes (except senior citizen housing, detached zero lot line and townhouses with nine or fewer units) which provide dwelling units with two or more bedrooms shall provide adequate recreation space for children with at least one space for the 5- to -12- year old group. Such space shall be at least 25% but not more than 50% of the total recreation space required under TMC 18.52.060.1, and shall be designated, located and maintained in a safe condition. b. Adequate fencing, plant screening, or other buffer shall separate the recreation space from parking areas, driveways or public streets. c. The anticipated use of all required recreation areas shall be specified and designed to clearly accommodate that use. (Ord. 1872 ,,414(part). 1999) 18.56.065 Residential Parking Requirements A. Two off - street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit which contains up to three bedrooms. One additional off - street parking space shall be required for every two bedrooms in excess of three bedrooms in a dwelling unit (i.e., four and five bedroom dwelling units shall have three off - street parking spaces, six and seven bedroom homes shall have four spaces, and so on). B. Each unit in a townhouse development shall have an attached garage with parking for at least one vehicle or a parking space in an underground garage. C. The Director shall have the discretion to waive the requirement to construct a portion of the off - street parking requirement if, based on a parking demand study, the property owner establishes that the dwelling will be used primarily to house residents who do not and will not drive due to a factor other than age. Such a study shall assure that ample parking is provided for residents who can drive, guests, caregivers and other persons who work at the residence. If such a waiver is granted, the property owner shall provide a site plan which demonstrates that, in the event of a change of use which eliminates the reason for the waiver, there is ample room on the site to provide the number of off - street parking spaces required by this Code. In the event that a change of use or type of occupant is proposed that would alter the potential number of drivers living or working at the dwelling, the application for change of use shall be conditioned on Page 8 of 9 construction of any additional off - street parking spaces required to meet the standards of this Code. (Ord I976§t'2.:2u(11) 18.60.050 Design Review Criteria A. Generally. The BAR is authorized to request and rely upon any document, guideline, or other consideration it deems relevant or useful to satisfy the purpose and objectives of this chapter, specifically including but not limited to the following criteria. The applicant shall bear the full burden of proof that the proposed development plans satisfy all of the criteria. The BAR may modify a literal interpretation of the design review criteria if, in their judgment such modifications better implement the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. C. Multi Family, Hotel and Motel Design Review Criteria. In reviewing any multi- family, hotel or motel application the following criteria shall be used by the BAR in its decision making as well as the Multi - Family Design Manual or Townhouse Design Manual. Detached zero lot line type of developments shall be subject to Townhouse Design Manual. Page 9 of 9 Vertical ai Modulation 111 11111 HonZOntal Modulation City MFay Design Gilliam Fjure 185 Figure 18 -5 This is referenced under TMC 18.50.083 (See Page 7 of 9)- Maximum building length and modulation requirements. I. SITE PLANNING TOWNHOUSE DESIGN GUIDELINES Streetscape - The transition from public to private spaces A. The transition from a pedestrian oriented streetscape to multi -story buildings should emphasize pedestrian scale architectural elements such as porches, plantings of varying heights, and use pedestrian oriented entries, courts, and lighting. It is possible to make the transition to the site, building and individual unit in many different physical ways. For example, a sidewalk could lead through a gate to a private yard and then to a porch before reaching the front door of the townhouse. The most successful solution will consist of a combination of the above suggested symbolic definers or other comparable mechanisms. -Bans; landscaping and architecture form a gateway. Special Pavers and awry sign. Fig. 1: Project entry provides an immediate sense of high quality design. B. Provide a clearly defined building or courtyard entry from the primary street. 1. Use distinctive architectural elements and materials to indicate the entry such as a change in paving material, low wall, steps, trellis, or arbor. Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 1 - Nov 1, 2007 Attachment E 2. Define the transition space from the sidewalk to the entry with a terrace, plaza, or landscaped area. 3. Consider turning the end unit (or pair of units) to face the public street, see Figure 20. Natural Environment — Retain natural site amenities C. Incorporate existing healthy and attractive vegetation into project design by locating buildings to maximize significant tree retention on slopes, retain tree stands, and minimize disturbance of sensitive areas. Retaining large stature trees and tree stands on site very significantly improves the integration of new developments into Tukwila's mature neighborhoods. Fig. 2: Site buildings and roads to retain mature trees. D. Landform grading should be used when feasible to reflect the natural topography and retain mature trees. Q: \Townhomes\. MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 2 - Nov 1, 2007 [8uIldi 1 1 Building 1 STREET Conventional Site Planning Fig. 3: Comparison of conventional and landform site grading. Circulation — Pedestrian Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc 1 Building 1 1 Building Slope Landforrn Site Planning E. Site coverage on slopes should be minimized to reduce visual impact. Site coverage limitations are not as significant on flat sites where lower buildings may be preferable to maximize architectural harmony with nearby structures and the streetscape. F. Site design should be integrated with the neighborhood. Project design integration should include coordination of circulation, landscaping, recreation spaces, and building location with the surrounding area. A visual distinction using landform, landscaping, or materials may separate a project from the general neighborhood. However, high "fortress" walls should be avoided and buildings should not turn their backs to the street. G. A comprehensive system of pedestrian sidewalks should link all building/unit entries, parking lots, recreation areas and the project entries with the area -wide sidewalk system. H. Sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet wide between public roadway and the junction where pedestrian traffic begins to disperse. This would allow one pedestrian to pass another and remain on the sidewalk. A minimum four foot wide sidewalk may then be acceptable. - 3 - Nov 1, 2007 I. Sidewalk crossings of on -site roadways should be distinguished by a different material and slightly raised to prevent runoff from flowing across them. Building awy area Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc Conbasdng Material marks pedestrian cra,gt Fig. 4: Key sidewalk intersections and segments are marked with contrasting pavers. J. Buildings should be separated at least 8 feet from driveways and parking spaces where facing windowed walls (but not the entry) of ground units and have a minimum 13 foot separation when facing the entry of ground units. K. Separate buildings from common walkways by at least 8 feet in the structure's front and rear, and a minimum 4 feet on its side. L. Separation guidelines do not apply to incidental structures such as trellises, 18 inch roof eaves, chimneys, covered walks, and pedestrian oriented amenities. Circulation — Vehicular M. Design the on -site vehicle circulation system as follows: • A maximum of two vehicle access points, depending on parcel characteristics and difficulty of access, to reduce traffic impacts and the site area devoted to roads instead of architecture and landscape /recreation space, • Create very low volume cul -de -sacs to allow multiple use as street oriented social/recreation areas, and • Stress shared driveways between adjacent developments. - 4 - Nov 1, 2007 Parking N. Locate parking to minimize conflicts between autos and pedestrians. Driveways should avoid crossing pedestrian walkways and paths from residence to children's play area. In large parking lots, provide pedestrian walkways to allowing people to move safely. Additional space should be provided where cars overhang curbs. 0. Separate driveway parking areas with landscape islands to create an individual unit entry and reduce the appearance of large areas of paving. Fig. 5: Separation of driveways with landscape islands. P. Provide the majority of the required parking spaces in attached garages (tandem parking allowed), underground parking, and underbuilding parking when grades permit at least partial screening. Q. Minimize the prominence of surface parking by using architecture and landscaping to break up or screen parking areas, moving parking to the side or rear, and breaking up large parking areas into smaller ones. Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc 5 - Nov 1, 2007 Fig. 6: Parking located so that it is screened by buildings. R. Supplemental parking areas should be located within 200 feet of the farthest dwelling unit served for the convenience of residents. S. The optimum design for a parking area is not necessarily the one which parks the maximum number of vehicles, but the one that also provides ample stall and aisle widths, pedestrian walks, adequate turning radii, reasonable grades, efficient movement of traffic, pleasant appearance, and convenient location. T. Four to six space parking lots are pedestrian and human in character, while over twelve cars become car dominated. The critical number seems to be ten. This marks the breaking point between a human lot and a sea of cars. Small lots can be accomplished by breaking large parking areas into sections that serve no more than 10 to 12 cars. Landscape islands and areas should be located to protect cars as well as to break up seas of asphalt. Solar Orientation Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc U. To maximize the warming effect of solar radiation in winter months and maximize shade in the summer months: 1. Utilize deciduous trees for summer shade and winter sun 2. Orient active living spaces to the south. 3. Design building overhangs to shield the high summer sun and expose the area to the lower winter sun. - 6 - Nov 1, 2007 Crime Prevention V. Employ the Concept of Defensible Space to reduce opportunities for crime. "Defensible space" is a term used to describe a series of physical design characteristics that maximizes resident control of behavior -- particularly crime. A residential development designed under defensible space guidelines clearly defines all areas as either public, semi - private or private. In so doing, it determines who has the right to be in each space, and allows residents to be confident in responding to any questionable activity or persons within their complex. Residents are thus encouraged to extend their private realms, establish their zone of influence which inevitably results in a heightened sense of responsibility towards the care and maintenance of these outdoor areas. W. The following series of techniques can be used to create defensible space and consequently reduce crime. They are summarized in: • Defining zones of privacy (public, semi - private, private) with real or symbolic barriers. This allows residents to identify "strangers ". • Establishing perceived zones of influence (allowing residents to extend their private realms). • Providing surveillance opportunities. Additional design considerations include the following: • Orient windows so that areas vulnerable to crime can be easily surveyed by residents. • Locate mailboxes, garbage collection enclosures and common play areas in such a way that they are easily observed by others. Mailboxes should not be located in dark alcoves out of sight • Establish a system for identifying the location of each residential unit and common facilities at the project entry. • Lighting. More light is not necessarily indicative of better and safer lighting. Lighting levels should be carefully selected and oriented so that areas vulnerable to crime are accented. Provide lighting in areas of heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in areas which are dangerous if unlit, such as stairs and ramps, intersections or where abrupt changes in grade occur. Areas that have high crime potential should be well lighted so that people traveling through them at night may feel secure. • Locate plant materials such as high shrubs so that surveillance of semi - public and semi- private areas is not blocked. This will provide the opportunity for crime. • Use visually open fencing materials such as wrought iron bars or wooden pickets to define space between the street and building. X. Sticker shrubs may discourage crime activities. Low shrubs and umbrella trees (where the canopy is maintained above 5 feet from the ground) will allow surveillance opportunities, hence reducing the potential for criminal behavior. Q: \Townhomes\M Fami IyDesGuide.doc - 7 - Nov 1, 2007 II. BUILDING DESIGN Neighborhood Compatibility A. Minimize the appearance of building scale differences between proposed townhouses and existing neighborhood residential units that conform to current zoning. Portions of multi - family developments adjoining areas zoned for single family should maintain a scale, facade and orientation similar to single family uses for compatibility with existing structures. A project site plan and cross - sections should show the footprint of all adjacent structures within 100 feet of the property line to help evaluate compatibility. Fig. 7: Incorporation of elements from neighboring structures into townhouse design. B. Reflect the architectural character of neighboring residences (within 300' on the same street) where it provides a positive example through use of related building features including scale /mass, height, the proportions of entries, windows and other openings (fenestration), color, materials, and shapes. 1. Step the roof on the building perimeter segments to transition between a proposed taller building and an existing residential structure. 2. Replicate or approximate roof forms and pitch found on existing residential structures in the neighborhood. 3. Use window patterns and proportions similar to those on existing residential structures in the neighborhood. 4. Use building facade materials similar to those used on existing residential buildings in the neighborhood. 5. Maintain a consistent relationship to the street (i.e., building setbacks and entryways) as existing buildings. Q: \Townhomes\M FamilyDesGui de.doc - 8 - Nov 1, 2007 1 OlTsets, changes in materials, and other fine detailing are used to provide architectural interest. Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc Pitched roofs, building modulation and \ intimate envies introduce a single family \ scale to this dense building DeJJis our). provides structural \ In a: 1 2 0 4 W fromp environment to \ sc" profrc i Pubhr • Fig. 8: Detailing and modulation are used to reduce the scale of the building. Building Entrances C. Avoid the use of exterior stairways to second stories that are visible from the street. Do this: -9- Nov I, 2007 Site Plan: Not this: Q: \Townhomes\MFami IyDesGuide. doc - 10 - Nov 1, 2007 Fig. 9: Relationship of entry to street level. D. Townhouse units shall have an individual entrance, with entrance vestibules, canopies or porches to give identity to each unit and provide weather protection. The main entrance to units adjacent to a public street shall be accessed from and face the street. Fig. 10 : Individual entry porch. Building Elevations Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc E. Attached townhouses shall read as a unified building mass, maintaining a common architectural language across the entire length of units. This mass shall be varied by changes in unit orientation, color /material variations, shifts in roof profile, and variation at corner units. Windows, bays, balconies, and other articulation could also be used to express the individuality of each unit. - 11 - Nov 1, 2007 F. Each building shall incorporate treatments that "complete" the end and corner units, including: 1. an extended base or ground floor units 2. a protrusion, porch or bay that wraps the corner, or 3. an embedded corner tower Fig. 11: Expressing individual units through modulation and roof forms. G. A 3 -story blank wall, even if at the narrow end of a building, does not reflect acceptable design quality. Use architectural relief and fine detailing to break up monotonous surfaces. H. Avoid applied ornamentation which is not related to building structure or architectural design. This would include arbitrary, inconsistent forms and decoration; uninterrupted floating horizontal elements; and large blank surfaces. Windows I. Provide relief, detail, and visual rhythm on the facade with well - proportioned windows. 1. Use window patterns, proportions, and orientation consistent with neighboring residences. 2. Use multiple -pane windows. 3. Provide windows that are designed to create shadows (either deeply recessed or protruding). 4. Use visually significant window elements (i.e. frame dimensions, lintels, casings, sills, and trim. 5. Locate windows so that the occupants from one residence cannot look directly into an adjacent residence. Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 12 - Nov 1, 2007 Fig. 12: Window form examples. Roofline Fig. 13: Roof form variation. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 13 - J. Vary the roofline along the building length to reflect individual units. This can be achieved using: - separate roof forms - a combination of roof types, such as shed, gabled and hipped roofs) - gables and dormers K. Pitched and continuous sloping roof forms are encouraged. Where flat roofs are used, they should be detailed with parapets or roof overhangs, and detailed with brackets, corbels or other decorative supports. Nov 1, 2007 Building Massing L. More prominent sites and buildings require a higher level of design quality. This would include projects which are located near hill tops or intersections, or which include large visible building masses. M. Use building and roof modulation and articulation to reduce the appearance of large building masses. 1. Modulate the building facade with features such as porches, balconies, building wall relief, and bay windows. 2. Provide roof elements such as gables, eyebrow roof forms or dormers. 3. Incorporate prominent cornice, soffit, or fascia details that emphasize the top of the building. 4. Provide prominent roof overhangs. 5. Articulate the roof with rafter tails and brackets. Fig. 14: Differentiation of individual units through color, material and roof forms. Material and Colors N. Construct building exteriors of durable and maintainable materials that are attractive even when viewed up close. Use building materials that have texture, pattern, or lend themselves to a high quality of detailing. Appropriate materials are horizontal lap siding, shingles, brick, stone, stucco, ceramic or terra cotta tile. 0. Use a variety of complementary colors on building exteriors. Reserve brightly saturated colors for accent or trim features. Garage Design P. Design garages and carports so that they do not dominate the dwelling's facade. 1. Locate garages and carports behind residences, stepped back from the building's street facade, or provide a side entry (perpendicular to the street). 2. Design driveways to be as narrow as possible and/or shared where possible to Q: \Townhomes W1Famil yDesGu ide. doc - 14 - Nov 1, 2007 minimize impervious surface and to minimize disruption of the sidewalk and planting strip by curb cuts. 3. Incorporate windows into garage sidewalls whenever they face the street so that they appear to contain habitable space. 4. Incorporate garage door elements which reduce the apparent size of the doors, such as panels and windows. 5. Use materials and colors that match the residence. Fig. 15: Side entry garage with windows. III. LANDSCAPE /SITE TREATMENT Landscape Design A. Plants can be used to curtail erosion, to soften the built environment, define or emphasize open space, give privacy, block wind and lessen the effects of solar radiation. B. Although the landscape plan should reflect plants at maturity, landscaping should be considered as a design element harmonizing site plans and building design only to the extent of its effect in five years. This could mean using significantly larger initial plant stock for those project designs which rely heavily upon landscaping to provide relief for building and site design or screen the project. C. Select and site landscape materials to produce a hardy and drought- resistant landscape area consistent with project design. Selection should include consideration of soil type and depth, spacing, exposure to sun and wind, slope and contours of the site, building walls and overhangs, and compatibility of new plant material with existing vegetation to be preserved on the site. Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 15 - Nov 1, 2007 D. Install all plant materials to current nursery industry standards. Landscape plant material should be properly guyed and staked to current industry standards. Planting of trees in compacted soils is prohibited unless minimum 12 inch gravel drain sumps are installed under each tree to a minimum of 36 inch depth, or the subgrade soil beyond the planting pit is rototilled to a 9 inch depth to the drip line or edge of planter, whichever is less. E. Plant shrubs used to define spaces or separate environments as a staggered double row whenever possible. This provides the significant depth especially necessary to separate environments such as parking areas from grassed fields and building entries. F. Limit shrub beds to a maximum of two feet wide per typical row of nursery stock plants, in order to minimize barked area and maximize live ground cover. A typical five foot wide barked planting bed for a single row of shrubs is not acceptable. Protection of Existing Trees G. The survival and general health of a tree depends as much on the condition of its root system as it does on the factors influencing the above - ground portion. This vital root system extends out to, and sometimes beyond the tree's drip line (the outermost reach of branches). Any significant disturbance to the root area, such as high surface compaction, root severing, over - watering and/or removal of organic material in which the tree has composted over several years, will almost certainly kill the tree. Tree removal and replacement would be required after a few seasons of progressive deterioration. H. Protect significant trees during construction with a chain -link fence or plastic vinyl construction fence at the drip line. Install the protection fence prior to issuance of grading permit. Removal or destruction of fencing should be cause for a Stop Work Order until reviewed by City staff. Fig. 16: Tree protected with a chain link fence at the drip line during construction. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 16 - Nov 1, 2007 Design for Screening and Separation I. Full privacy requires an opaque fence or evergreen barrier at least six feet high or above eye level, depending on the angle of view. Noise reduction requires a dense fence (i.e., concrete /masonry) wall or berm in addition to plantings. J. Area separation requires a continuous physical barrier not less than three feet high. A greater degree of separation would require a higher opaque barrier. A separation planting strip could be deciduous or evergreen. K. Provide a privacy fence along side and rear yards if adjoining single family zoning. This should be 6 feet high sight- obscuring wood (or equivalent) fence with exterior materials and colors consistent with building architecture. Outdoor Space Design L. Outdoor space tends to be unusable when it is simply the "leftovers" after buildings are placed on the land. Outdoor spaces should have a definite functional shape, be internally designed to fulfill that function, and be functionally associated with a specific unit or unit group (see "Defensible Space" in Site Plan guidelines). M. Complexes with 10 or more units must provide an on -site recreation space for children with at least one area designed for children aged 5 -12, see TMC 18.52.060. This area should be characterized by interactive group equipment which tests skills. The Parks and Recreation Director should be consulted in the review of acceptable design proposals. N. The child play area should reflect the design elements below: 1. Visually accessible to casual surveillance by passersby and residents. This is a key element in facility safety and generally requires a central location. 2. Provide separation of play areas from general passersby for security. 3. Easy safe access from residence to play area(s) 4. Hard surface areas for wheeled toys and tricycles. 5. Equipment with zones to satisfy the specific sensory and skill needs up to age 12. 6. Use water and sand if limited to two materials. These provide more possibilities for play and fun than all asphalt deserts combined. The ability to move over, under, around or through something.affords a child control. He can change his relationship to it. 7. A child should be able to control his level of involvement with others. Make small sheltered areas for solitary play, larger spaces .for group play. 8. An adjacent sitting area for monitoring the children. Q: \Townhomes\Iv1 Fami IyDesGuide.doc - 17 - Nov 1, 2007 Fig. 18: Parking lot lighting. Q : \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 18 - Fig. 17: A recreation space for the 5 -12 year old group which facilitates group interaction and skill testing. O. Linkages with existing public trail and park facilities should be made where possible, either through immediate construction or agreement to jointly participate in the coordinated provision of such a linkage at a later date. IV. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES /STREET FURNITURE Lighting A. Reflect project architectural design considerations in all exterior lighting (i.e., distribution, intensity, and pattern). B. Maximum parking area light standard height is 20 feet or the height of the building; whichever is less. C. Maximum walkway and grounds lighting is 15 feet. Light fixture height is limited to enhance a sense of scale and enclosure for common areas at night. Nov 1, 2007 D. Provide all lighting standards with glare cut -off features to avoid off -site spill -over. E. Place fixtures so that light patterns overlap at a height of 7 feet which is sufficiently high to vertically illuminate a person's body. F. At hazardous locations, such as changes of grade, use lower level supplemental lighting or additional overhead units. Where low -level lighting (below 5 feet) is used, fixtures should be placed in such a way that they do not produce glare. Most eye levels occur between 3 feet 8 inches for wheelchair users and 6 feet for standing adults. G. Where walkway lighting is provided primarily by low fixtures provide sufficient peripheral lighting to illuminate the immediate surroundings. Peripheral lighting contributes to a feeling of security in an individual because he can see into his surroundings to determine whether or not passage through an area is safe. Such an area should be lighted so that the object or person may be seen directly or in silhouette. Fencing, Walls, and Screening H. All fencing, walls, and screening should reflect building architecture and be harmonious with adjacent project designs. This includes consideration of proportion, color, texture, and materials. Design perimeter fencing to be attractive from both sides. Service Areas I. Screen all exterior maintenance equipment, including HVAC equipment, electrical equipment, storage tanks, satellite dishes, and garbage dumpsters from off -site and on -site common area view in an architecturally integrated manner. l e 1' , 7 r.. • I � . /-,. .' v wAiwk.-w.r,- lf,.." .i loot % •••itigini.., , , .........,..... Fig. 19: Dumpsters are sited and screened to minimize prominence. Q: \Townhomes\ MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 19 - Nov 1, 2007 J. Several small dumpsters adjacent to buildings such as garages are preferable to a single large free standing site. Dumpsters should have solid architectural wall screening only to the container height to minimize its prominence. B M Minimum Garbage pickup area for now development Garbage Plokup Area 0 t I t Fig. 20: Garbage collection area screened from public street. K. Recycling containers and areas should conform to King County standards or as amended by Tukwila standards. Street Furniture L. Carry out the project's design concept with the choice of street furniture. M. Foster opportunities for social gathering by residents in shared open spaces by the provision of seating and other amenities. Separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian- oriented areas with the use of bollards and other barrier features. Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 20 - Nov 1, 2007 J1- t ',q o 1.�,'�i� ;� • V �, i , o • �, \ , er :. ; '............ -�. .... 1908 ,. -:= Monday, July 16, Tukwila City Council Agenda ❖ REGULAR MEETING ❖ Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Councilmembers, • • / Joe Duffie • Joan Hernandez Rhonda Berry, City Administrator • Pam Carter • Jim Haggerton Verna Griffin, Council President • Pamela Linder • Dennis Robertson 2007; 7:00 PM • Ord # 2172 • Res #1640 1. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE / ROLL CALL 2. CITIZEN COMMENT At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on this agenda (please limit your comments to five minutes per citizen). To comment on an item listed on this agenda, please save your comments until the issue is presented for discussion. 3. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of minutes: 7/2/07 (Regular). b. Approval of vouchers. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. An ordinance raising the threshold for SEPA environmental review to 12,000 square feet and 40 parking stalls for commercial /industrial construction and nine dwelling units for residential construction, and to adopt the Optional Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) process under WAC 197 -11 -355. b. Zoning Code Amendments that will: 1) Create a process for determining the number of wetland mitigation credits required for off -site mitigation; and 2) Restrict expansion of houses into non - conforming setbacks; and 3) Allow retaining walls up to four feet high in setbacks, allow retaining walls over four feet high in setbacks, under certain conditions; and 4) Provide an administrative lot area variance in the LDR zone and update the permit classification table. Pg.1 . Pg.5 Pg.13 Pg.13 Pg.13 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. A resolution rejecting the bids submitted for the Green River Pedestrian and Utility Bridge Project, and authorizing staff to re- design the project and re- advertise for bids. b. An ordinance authorizing and providing for the acquisition of land for the purpose of constructing the Tukwila International Boulevard Phases 2 and 3 road improvements; providing for condemnation, appropriation and taking of land and property rights necessary therefore; providing for the cost thereof; and directing the initiation of appropriation proceedings in the manner provided by law for the condemnation. c. A resolution waiving the bidding requirements and authorizing the purchase of an emergency advisory AM radio station from Information Station Specialists, Inc. (in the amount of $32,000.00). d. Code Amendments: A) An ordinance amending Ordinance Nos. 1331 and 1344, as codified at Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 21.04, raising certain threshold requirements that initiate SEPA Environmental Review, adopting the Optional DNS process under WAC 197 -11 -355 (see item 4a above). ,/2) An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2074, as codified at Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.45, to create a process for determining the number of wetland mitigation credits required for off -site mitigation (see item 4b(1) above). (Continued) Pg.33 Pg.37 Pg.41 Pg.1 Pg.5 Tukwila City Council Agenda ❖ REGULAR MEETING ❖ July 16, 2007 Page 2 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued) 4 An ordinance amending Ordinance Nos. 1819 and 2077, as codified Pg.13 at Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.70, to restrict expansion of houses into non - conforming setbacks (see item 4b(2) above). 4) An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1758, as codified at Pg.13 Tukwila Municipal Code Chapters 18.06 and 18.50, to allow retaining walls up to four feet high in setbacks, and allow retaining walls over four feet high in setbacks, under certain conditions (see item 4b(3) above). 5) An ordinance amending Ordinance Nos. 2119 and 2135, and Pg.13 Chapters 18.50 and 18.104 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, to provide an Administrative Lot Area Variance in the LDR Zone that would be processed as a Type 2 Decision (see item 4b(4) above). e. Tukwila Village Review (45 minutes). Pg.45 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. REPORTS a. Mayor c. Staff e. Intergovernmental b. City Council d. City Attorney 8. MISCELLANEOUS 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION 10. ADJOURNMENT Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible. Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice to the City Clerk's Office 206 - 433- 1800/TDD 206 - 248 -2933. This notice is available at www.ci.tukwila.wa.us, and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities. Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped. CAS NUMBER: 07 090 ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: JULY 9, 2007 Mayor's review AGENDA ITEM TITLE Zoning Code amendments addressing expansion into non-conforming setbacks, retaining wall setbacks, administrative lot area variance in LDR and housekeeping. (3 ordinances) CATEGORY 0 Discussion 7/9/07 Motion Meg Date Resolution Mfg Date 0 Ordinance Bid Award Mtg Date El Public Hearing Mtg Date 07/16/07 Other Meg Date Mtg Date bits Date 07/16/07 SPONSOR fl Council Mayor El Achn Svcs 14 DCD El Finance Fire Legal El P&R El Police fl PJV SPONSOR'S Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for SUMMARY consideration: 1) Limitation on single family expansions within non-conforming setbacks; 2) Retaining wall setback changes; 3) Administrative variance for single family lot size; and 4) Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010. REVIEWED BY El COW Mtg. El Utilities DA 4/10/07, ■ CA&P Cmte F&S Cmte El Parks 5/24/07 (PC) Transportation Cmte Cmte • 6/26/07 Arts Comm. (CAP), Comm • Planning Comm RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. CONFMI Hold a public hearing on the draft ordinances to COW ITEE Forward EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $0 $0 $0 Fund Source: N/A Comments: - _ 7- 7 ---- -- - ; - 7 - 1. - -- - : - - ---' --':=-;---' . REYORCOUNCALACTION 7-9-07 ___ Forward to next Regular Meeting - - = --- - ---- = - -- -- _ ,, ______.„ _ - -- ----------__ - _ 1T GD ATII ___„ ,_._____ . ,---- -- - ---_, - - — ---- -- - 7-9-07 _= _ _ ___ _ _ Information Memo dated 6/28/07 with Attachments - Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 6/26/07 7-16-07 Information Memo dated 7/10/07, with Administrative Lot Variance examples Ordinances in final form Meeting Date Prepare. .. Mayor's review Council review 07/09/07 JP \■' . . r rf 07/16 07 JP lrjrialiw ra \ COUNCIL AGEIVDA SYNOPSIS ITEM No. .b ( 4- • ( 3 --5) TO: Mayor Mullet Tukwila City Council FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Director DATE: July 10, 2007 SUBJECT: Retaining Wall and Administrative Lot Variance Code Amendments BACKGROUND INFORMATIONMEMORANDUM Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for consideration: A. Limitation on single family expansions within non - conforming setbacks; B. Retaining wall setback changes; C. Administrative variance for single family lot size; and D. Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010. Staff presented these issues with various options to the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP) Committee on April 10, 2007. The Committee discussed each item and chose to forward them to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation. The PC made only minor changes and their recommendations are reflected in the strikeout/underline language listed in the attached draft ordinances. The CAP reviewed the issues again on June 26 and recommended forwarding all items to the July 9 COW meeting. At that meeting no changes were made to item A. The Council reviewed revised language for item B, some alternatives are listed below. There was not consensus among the Council on item C and no recommendation was made. Item D is housekeeping and is dependant on the decision made on item C. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS A. Limitation on single family expansions within non - conforming setbacks No additional analysis provided. Q: \CODEAMND\2007Amend7- 16.130C Page 1 B. Retaining Wall Setbacks The Council agreed to align the definition of structure in the Zoning and Building Codes to avoid confusion. There were several different ideas for the wording of item 4 of the proposed Retaining Wall Setback Waiver. The alternate language suggested for item 4 is shown below: 18.50.150 Retaining Wall Setback Waiver Retaining walls with an exposed height greater than four feet may be allowed in required front, side or rear yard setbacks under the following circumstances: 1. When the applicant's property is on the lower side of the retaining wall so that it is not visible from the adjacent property or is screened by landscaping, or 2. When a wall built on a property line or perpendicular to it benefits the lots on both sides and the owners of both properties agree to jointly maintain the wall, or 3. When a wall in a front yard is required due to roadway expansion or improvements, or PC Recommended Wording 4. When a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road that meets Fire Department slope requirements and the exposed face either has a decorative /textured treatment or is screened with landscaping. - OR- - OR- Council Wording Options4C.- ^k`' c 0 4. When a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road to meet Fire Department slope requirements and the exposed face is either facing the applicant's property, has a decorative /textured treatment or is screened by landscaping. Additional Option D2 l.Ci 7 Delete 4 since the situation would already be covered by 1. A final option would be to keep the current prohibition on retaining walls over 4 feet high in yard setbacks. This would likely constrain development on some steeply sloping sites or require property owner(s) to apply for a variance. C. Administrative Variance for Lot Size The PC recommended creation of an administrative variance to the DCD Director for reductions in lot size of up to 500 sf per lot for up to two lots to streamline the process for lots that are just under the threshold for subdivision or where there is an existing house that prevents the lots from Q: \CODEAMND\2007Amend7- 16.DOC Page 2 being divided equally. Requests for greater reductions through a variance would still require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. At the COW meeting additional analysis of the number of lots that may be able to take advantage of the proposed administrative lot variance was requested by the Council, see Attachment A. Alternatives to the PC draft ordinance are: 1. Make no change to Tukwila's variance procedures and criteria. This would mean that division of lots under 13,000 sf would only be allowed under exceptional and unique circumstances. The City has never approved such a variance under the current Comprehensive Plan. 2. Review minimum lot sizes in single family areas throughout the City during the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. �'� 5 + �^ 10-4.-.1 I DA- pwl 3. Modify the proposed variance criteria or create additional criteria. �l n + ' L'��/"� } AI- WL -rvir O�+`CT O C,�:. ✓ "�`� D . Permit Processing Housekeeping There are a few decisions called out in the body of the Zoning Code that are not listed in the table at TMC 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications. In addition the proposed changes above, if adopted, would add a new decision to the code. For clarity all of the types of decisions should be listed along with the decision maker and appeal body. REQUESTED ACTION Adopt the ordinances as written or amended. Attachment A - Administrative Lot Variance Examples 4- 0 tl ' ✓JJ °� C VLF G''1",<, ,.tea. - 96 t PP cx 4 . p s- h , -ry , J�� Q:\CODEANLVD\2007Amend7-16.DOC • • Page 3 • • Administrative Lot Variance Examples A search of Tukwila parcels shows 146 LDR zoned lots between 12,000 and 13,000 square feet in size. Of those 8 could not be subdivided due to the presence of wetlands or streams. Another 63 could clearly not be subdivided unless the existing house was removed because of its location or size. 5 of these were listed as duplexes by the King County Assessor and therefore ineligible for the variance. The remaining 75 may have other constraints that were not apparent. The two lots below are examples of sites that could accommodate a second house under the variance provisions. The house below has sensitive area constraints that would prevent subdivision. The orange hatching and line shows a wetland and wetland buffer edge. Attachment A • The lots below cannot be subdivided because the houses are centered on their lots. In addition the houses are likely too large to meet the 26% lot coverage limitation for that size lot. The house below is too wide to allow for an access road to the rear of the lot. • City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1819 AND 2077, AS CODIFIED AT CHAPTER 18.70 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE, TO RESTRICT EXPANSION OF HOUSES INTO NON - CONFORMING SETBACKS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, limiting the expansion of single -family structures that have legally non- conforming building setbacks will reduce the impact upon neighboring properties; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed amendments that address non - conforming residential setbacks, and has recommended the adoption of certain Zoning Code changes; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on these proposed amendments July 16, 2007, after proper notice; and WHEREAS, after having received and studied staff analysis, the City Council believes that certain amendments to the City's development regulations are desirable; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance Nos. 1819 §1 (part) and 2077 §1, as codified at TMC 18.70.050, are hereby amended to read as follows: 18.70.050 Nonconforming Structures Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption of this title that could not be built under the terms of this title by reason of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height, yards or other characteristics of the structure, it may be continued so long as the structure remains otherwise lawful subject to the following provisions: 1. No such structure may be enlarged or altered in such a way that increases its degree of nonconformity. Ordinary maintenance of a nonconforming structure is permitted, pursuant to TMC 18.70.060, including but not limited to painting, roof repair and replacement, plumbing, wiring, mechanical equipment repair /replacement and weatherization. These and other alterations, additions or enlargements may be allowed as long as the work done does not extend further into any required yard or violate any other portion of this title. Complete plans shall be required of all work contemplated under this section. 2. Should such structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50% of its replacement cost at time of destruction, in the judgment of the City's Building Official, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with provisions of this title, except that in the LDR zone, structures that are nonconforming in regard to yard setbacks or sensitive area buffers, but were in conformance at the time of construction may be reconstructed to their original dimensions and location on the lot. C:\Docwsena and 9eaings\A11 UscrsZcsktop∎ XelIMSDATAWrdinanccANon <onforming Sethaeks.doc NO:km 7/170007 Page 1 of 3 and • • 3. Should such structure be moved for any reason or any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the zone in which it is located after it is moved. 4. When a nonconforming structure, or structure and premises in combination, is vacated or abandoned for 24 consecutive months, the structure, or structure and premises in combination, shall thereafter be required to be in conformance with the regulations of the zone in which it is located. Upon request of the owner, the City Council may grant an extension of time beyond the 24 consecutive months. 5. Residential structures and uses located in arty single - family or multiple - family residential zoning district and in existence at the time of adoption of this title shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of bulk, use, or density provisions of this title. Such buildings may be rebuilt after a fire or other natural disaster to their original dimensions and bulk, but may not be changed except as provided in the non- conforming uses section of this chapter. 6. Single- family structures in single- or multiple- family residential zone districts, which have legally nonconforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand the ground floor only along the existing building line(s), so long as the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the property line is not reduced, and the square footage of new intrusion into the setback does not exceed 50% of the square footage of the current intrusion. 7. In wetlands, watercourses and their buffers, existing structures that do not meet the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Overlay District chapter of this title may be remodeled, reconstructed or replaced, provided that a. The new construction does not further intrude into or adversely impact art undeveloped sensitive area or the required buffer; b. The new construction does not threaten the public health, safety or welfare; c. The structure otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter. 8. In areas of potential geologic instability, coal mine hazard areas, and buffers, as defined in the Sensitive Areas Overlay District chapter of this title, existing structures may be remodeled, reconstructed or replaced, provided that a. The new construction is subject to the geotechnical report requirements and standards of Section 18.45.080E and .080F; b. The new construction does not threaten the public health, safety or welfare; c. The new construction does not increase the potential for soil erosion or result in unacceptable risk or damage to existing or potential development or to neighboring properties; and d. The structure otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter. 9. A nonconforming use, within a nonconforming structure, shall not be allowed to expand into any other portion of the nonconforming structure. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. C:IDocumcnts ad SettingMII UsaslDulaop UCelIyIMSDATAIOTdinancaR on-conforming Setbacks.doe no:m, 7/12/2007 Page 2 of 3 Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007. • • ATTEST / AUTHENTICA 1 ED: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney Steven M. Mullet, Mayor C. Document, and Seting:Wt Uscrsi DesknplKcllA iSDATAIOrdinenwWantonfonning Setba:la.doe NO:ken 7/12/2007 Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Page 3 of 3 • City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1758, AS CODII1hll AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 18.06 AND 18.50, TO ALLOW RETAINING WALLS UP TO FOUR FEET HIGH IN SETBACKS, AND ALLOW RETAINING WALLS OVER FOUR FEET HIGH IN SETBACKS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, several different standards exist for determining whether retaining walls can be located in required setbacks, which leads to confusion and in some cases unusable yards; and WHEREAS, allowing retaining walls and rockeries with up to four feet of exposed face in setbacks would align zoning and building code requirements; and WHEREAS, allowing retaining walls higher than four feet in setbacks may be appropriate in certain circumstances; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed amendments addressing the retaining wall issue and has recommended the adoption of certain Zoning Code changes; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on these proposed amendments July 16, 2007, after proper notice; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after having received and studied staff analysis and comments from members of the public, believes that certain amendments to the City's development regulations are desirable; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.06.800, is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.06.800 Structure "Structure" means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, but excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized. Not included are residential fences up to six feet in height, retaining walls or rockeries with up to four feet of exposed face, and similar improvements of minor character. Section 2. TMC Chapter 18.50, "Supplemental Development Standards," is hereby amended to add the following section: C:1Documents and Seuings1All UursTlesin opU CelyLMSDATA10rdinances\Retaining Walls.doe GL:lan 7/178007 Page 1 of 2 • TMC 18.50.150 Retaining Wall Setback Waiver Retaining walls with an exposed height greater than four feet may be allowed in required front, side or rear yard setbacks under the following circumstances: 1. When the applicant's property is on the lower side of the retaining wall and it is not visible from adjacent properties or is screened by landscaping; or 2. When a wall built on a property line or perpendicular to it benefits the lots on both sides, and the owners of both properties agree to jointly maintain the wall; or 3. When a wall in a front yard is required due to roadway expansion or improvements; or When a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road that meets Fire Department slope requirements, and the exposed face either has a decorative /textured treatment or is screened with landscaping. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2007. ATTEST/ AUTf ENTICAiED: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney Steven M. Mullet, Mayor CADowmcots and Sc0 ngsWl Usess uDeaktnpOCclly1MSDATAWtdinances1Retaining WalLs.doc CL.ksn 7/12/1007 Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Page 2 of 2 • City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 2119 AND 2135, AND CHAPTERS 18.50 AND 18.104 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE, TO PROVIDE AN ADMINISTRATIVE LOT AREA VARIANCE IN THE LDR ZONE THAT WOULD BE PROCESSED AS A TYPE 2 DECISION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, creating an administrative variance for lot size for up to 500 square feet could relieve material hardship in specific circumstances; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed amendments to regulate applications for these variances and has recommended the adoption of certain Zoning Code changes; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendments July 16, 2007, after proper notice; and WHEREAS, after having received and studied staff analysis and comments from members of the public, the City Council believes that certain amendments to the City's development regulations are desirable; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUICWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. TMC Chapter 18.50, "Supplemental Development Standards," is hereby amended to add the following section: TMC 18.50.140 Administrative Lot Area Variance in LDR A property owner in the LDR zone may apply for a reduction in lot size of up to 500 square feet per lot for up to two lots. This shall be processed as a Type 2 decision concurrent with the short plat or boundary line adjustment application and approved only if all of the following criteria would be met: 1. The current or past property owner has not reduced the area of the lot in question by BLA, short plat or sale of adjacent lots under common ownership, after the effective date of Ordinance No. 2097 (August 6, 2005). 2. The new lots would be able to meet all other development standards including setbacks, maximum building footprint, and parking. 3. Lots that have received a reduction in size through the PRD process are not eligible for further reductions through this variance process. 4. The lot must not contain a multi- family structure or an accessory dwelling unit. 5. The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surrounding of the subject property, in order to provide C:1Dacuments and SeulogsWl Users\ Desktop 'KefyNISDATAWNinanas\Admin Lai Veriance.doc NG:ksu 7/12/2007 Page 1 of 5 TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Any land use permit or approval issued by the City, unless specifically categorized as a Type 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision by this Chapter As specified by Ordinance . Boundary Line Adjustment, including Lot Consolidation (TMC 17.08) Community Development Director Development Permit Building Official Minor modification to BAR- approved design (TMC 18.60.030) Community Development Director Minor Modification to PRD (TMC 18.46.130) Community Development Director Sign Permit, except for those sign permits specifically requiring approval of the Planning Commission, or denials of sign permits that are appealable Community Development Director Tree Permit (TMC 18.54) Community Development Director Wireless Communication Facility, Minor (TMC 18.58) Community Development Director TYPE 1 DECISIONS • • it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. 6. The variance permitted is the minimum variance necessary to relieve a hardship which cannot be relieved by any other means. 7. The granting of the variance will not cause a substantial detrimental effect to the public interest 8. The lot size reduction approved must result in a development that is compatible with and meets the spirit of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, and will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and the rights of the neighboring property owners. Section 2. Ordinance Nos. 2119 §1 and 2135 §19, as codified at TMC 18.104.010, are hereby amended to read as follows: 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications A. Project permit decisions are classified into five types, based on the degree of discretion associated with each decision, as set forth in this section. Procedures for the five different types are distinguished according to who makes the decision, whether public notice is required, whether a public meeting and /or a public hearing is required before a decision is made, and whether administrative appeals are provided. B. TYPE 1 DECISIONS are made by City administrators who have technical expertise as designated by ordinance. Type 1 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner who will hold a closed record appeal hearing based on the information presented to the City administrator who made the decision. Public notice is not required for Type 1 decisions or for the appeals of those decisions. C. TYPE 2 DECISIONS are decisions which are initially made by the Director or, in certain cases, other City administrators or committees, but which are subject to an open record appeal to the Hearing Examiner, Planning Commission, City Council, or, in the case of shoreline permits, an appeal to the State Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. Q1Documents and SettingtWt User opIKelI MSDATAAOrdinanccslAdmin Lot Variana.don NO inn 7/12/2007 Page 2 of 5 TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY (open record appeal) Administrative Design Review (TMC 18.60.030) Community Development Director Board of Architectural Review Administrative Lot Area Variance in LDR (TMC 18.50.140) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Administrative Planned Residential Development (TMC 18.46) Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner Binding Site Improvement Plan (TMC Chapter 17.16) Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner Cargo Container Placement (TMC 18.50.060) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Code Interpretation (TMC 18.90.010) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Commercial Redevelopment Area waiver of certain setback and landscape standards (TMC 18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080) Community Development Director Board of Architectural Review Exception from Single Family Design Standard (TMC 18.50.050) Community Development Director City Council Parking standard for use not specified (TMC 18.56.100) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Sensitive Area decision (except Reasonable Use Exception) (TMC 18.45) Community Development Director Planning Commission Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (TMC Chapter 18.44) Community Development Director State Shoreline Hearings Board Short Plat (TMC 17.12) Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner Sign Area Increase (TMC 19.32.140) Community Development Director Planning Commission Sign Permit Denial (TMC Chapter 19.12.020) Community Development Director Planning Commission Special Permission Landscape Approvals (TMC 18.52.020) Community Development Director Board of Architectural Review Special Permission Parking, and Shared, Covenant or Complimentary Parking (TMC 18.56.065 and .070) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Special Permission Sign, except "unique sign" (various sections of TMC Title 19) Community Development Director Planning Commission Structures over public R-O -W (TMC 18.50.130) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Variance from Parking Standards less than 10% (TMC 18.56.140) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Wireless Communication Facility, Minor (TMC 18.58) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner • TYPE 2 DECISIONS C:1Documets and SeningsWl Users1DcsktnpVW Iy1MSDATA1OrdinanceMdmin La Variana.doc NG:ksn 7/12/2007 • D. TYPE 3 DECISIONS are quasi - judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner following an open record hearing. Type 3 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court, except for shoreline variances that may be appealed to the State Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. Page 3 of 5 TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY (dosed record appeal) Commercial Redevelopment Area waiver of certain setback and landscape standards (TMC 18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080) Board of Architectural Review Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit (TMC Chapter 18.64) Planning Commission City Council Modification or Waiver to Loading Zone or Bicycle Parking Requirements (TMC 18.56.060 or .130) Planning Commission Hearing Examiner Public Hearing Design Review (TMC Chapter 18.60, 18.56.040 and Shoreline Master Program) Board of Architectural Review City Council Reasonable Use Exceptions under Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.180) Planning Commission City Council Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (TMC 18.44.050) Planning Commission State Shoreline Hearings Board Subdivision - Preliminary Plat (TMC 17.14.020) Planning Commission City Council Unique Signs (TMC 19.28.010) Planning Commission City Council Variance from Parking Standards Over 10% (TMC 18.56.140) Planning Commission Hearing Examiner Wireless Communication Facility, Major or Waiver Request (TMC 18.58) Planning Commission City Council TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Planned Residential Development (PRD), including Major Modifications (TMC Chapter 18.46) City Council Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84) City Council Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC 18.45.160) City Council Shoreline Environment Re- designation (Shoreline Master Program) City Council Subdivision - Final Plat (TMC 17.14.030) City Council Unclassified Use (TMC Chapter 18.66) City Council . TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Resolve uncertain zone district boundary Hearing Examiner Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk, land alteration, sign) Hearing Examiner • TYPE 3 DECISIONS TYPE 4 DECISIONS • E. TYPE 4 DECISIONS are quasi - judicial decisions made by the Board of Architectural Review or the Planning Commission, following an open record hearing. Type 4 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner or City Council, which will hold a dosed record appeal hearing based on the record established by the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, which are appealable to the State Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. F. TYPE 5 DECISIONS are quasi - judicial decisions made by the City Council following an open record hearing. Type 5 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court. TYPE 5 DECISIONS C:1Documeats and SettingslAll UserslDes tnp\Kc0y\MSDATAWrdinanccMdmin Lot Varimu.doe ND:ksn 7/12/2007 Page 4 of 5 Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2007. ATTEST / AUTHENTICATEll: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney Steven M. Mullet, Mayor C:1Donmiads and SeningsW1 Users■Desktop KellylMSDATMOrdinanuslAdmin Lot Variance.doc NO:Ian 7/12/2007 Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Page 5 of 5 0 4 0A,,,, . Tukwila City Coun ' l Agenda o� � ,. � • ❖ COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE • ❖ ..r ,�,, 1 1 6 1 , r 01 * i. o Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Councilmembers: • Joe Duffie • Joan Hernandez ,*:...........4. �4. : Rhonda Berry, City Administrator • Pam Carter • Jim Haggerton 1908 Verna Griffin, Council President • Pamela Linder • Dennis Robertson MONDAY, July 9, 2007; 7:00 PM Tukwila City Hall; Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN COMMENT At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on this agenda (please limit your comments to five minutes per citizen). To comment on an item listed on this agenda, please save your comments until the issue is presented for discussion. 3. SPECIAL ISSUES a. Bid rejection for Green River Pedestrian and Utility Bridge Repairs and Sealing. b. Tukwila International Boulevard Phase 2 and 3 Improvements right -of- way /condemnation ordinance. c. Emergency Advisory AM Radio System. d. Code Amendments: 1) An ordinance to raise the threshold for SEPA environmental review to 12,000 square feet and 40 parking stalls for commercial /industrial construction and nine dwelling units for residential construction, and adopt the Optional Determination of Non - significance (DNS) Process under WAC 197 -11 -355. 2) An ordinance to create a process for determining the number of wetland mitigation credits required for off -site mitigation. 3) An ordinance to restrict expansion of houses into non- conforming setbacks. 4) An ordinance to allow retaining walls up to four feet high in setbacks, under certain conditions. 5) An ordinance to provide an Administrative Lot Area Variance • in the LDR Zone and update the permit classification table. Pg.1 Pg.9 Pg.99 Pg.113 Pg.123 Pg.141 Pg.146 Pg.153 4. REPORTS a. Mayor c. Staff e. Intergovernmental b. City Council d. City Attorney 5. MISCELLANEOUS 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION 7. ADJOURNMENT Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible. Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice to the City Clerks Office 206 - 433 1800/TDD 206 - 248 - 2933. This notice is available at www.ci.tukwila.wa.us, and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities. Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped. HOW TO TESTIFY If you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and address clearly for the record. Please observe the basic rules of courtesy when speaking and limit your comments to five minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens, but may not be able to take immediate action on comments received until they are referred to a Committee or discussed under New Business. COUNCIL MEETINGS No Council meetings are scheduled on the fifth Monday of the month unless prior public notification is given. Regular Meetings: The Mayor, elected by the people to a four -year term, presides at all Regular Council meetings held on the first and third Mondays of each month at 7 PM. Official Council action in the form of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing of ordinances can only be taken at Regular Council meetings. Committee of the Whole Meetings: Council members are elected for a four -year term. The Council president is elected by the Council members to preside at all Committee of the Whole meetings for a one- year term. Committee of the Whole meetings are held the second and fourth Mondays at 7 PM. Issues discussed are forwarded to the Regular Council meeting for official action. GENERAL INFORMATION At each Council meeting citizens are given the opportunity to address the Council on items that are not included on the agenda during Citizen Comment. Please limit your comments to five minutes. Special Meetings may be called at any time with proper public notice. Procedures followed are the same as those used in Regular Council meetings. Executive Sessions may be called to inform the Council of pending legal action, financial or personnel matters. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action of matters affecting the public interest such as land -use laws, annexations, rezone requests, public safety issues, etc. Section 104.150 of the Tukwila Municipal Code states the following guidelines for Public Hearings: 1. The proponent shall speak first and is allowed 15 minutes for a presentation. 2. The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation. 3. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal. 4. Citizens who wish to address the Council may speak for 5 minutes each. time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken. 5. After each speaker has spoken, the Council may question the speaker. the question, but may not engage in further debate at this time. 6. After the Public Hearing is closed, the Council may discuss the issue among themselves without further public testimony. Council action may be taken at this time or postponed to another date. No one may speak a second Each speaker can respond to Meeting Date P Prepa • • by M Mayor's review C Council review 05 14/07 J JP A l WA 07/09/07 ] t • OUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials ITEM INFORMATION ITEM No. CAS NUMBER: 07-056 AGENDA ITEM TITLE SEPA Code Amendment CATEGORY El Discussion El Resolution Meg Date 7/9/07 .114tgDate SPONSOR [] Council D Mayor LI Adm Svcs DCD Finance 0 Fire D Legal 0 PeM 0 Police 0 PW The proposal is to raise certain SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) review thresholds and streamline the review process by combining comment periods. SPONSOR'S SUMMARY REVIEWED BY E] COW Mtg. CA&P Cmte LI F&S Cmte El Transportation Cmte D Utilities Cmte 0 Arts Comm 0 Parks Comm. El Planning Comm. DATE: 4-10-07, 6-26-07 (CAP), 5-14-07 (COW), 5-24-07 (PC) RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. Forward PC Recommendation to COW Commn IEE Approve PC Recommendation; Forward to COW COST ,IMPAcT I FUND t SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $0 AMOUNT BUDGETED $0 APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $0 Fund Source: N/A Comments: MTG DATE 5-14-07 MT". DATE 5-14-07 7-9-07 111 Motion Mg Date ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: MAY 14, 2007 [X] Ordinance Mtg Date 07/16/07 0 Bid Award Mtg Date 0 Public Hearing Mtg Date 07/16/07 0 Other Mtg Date _ - ECoRD'05- COUNCIL' ACTION Forward to Planning Commission for a recommendation I , ,ATTACHMENTS Information Memo dated 5/9/07 Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 4/10/07 Information Memo dated 6/28/07 Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 6/26/07 113 Type of Action Tukwila's Threshold Maximum Threshold PC Proposed Thresholds Residential Construction 4 dwelling units 20 dwelling units 9 dwelling units Commercial/Industrial Construction 4,000 sf and 20 parking spaces 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces Parking Lots 40 parking spaces 40 parking spaces No Change Landfills or Excavations 500 cubic yards 500 cubic yards No Change To: Mayor Mullet Committee of the Whole FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Directo DATE: June 28, 2007 SUBJECT: Code Amendment — SEPA • • INFORMATION MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that a standard checklist be filled out by a project proponent to identify the environmental impacts of certain actions. Actions include grading, dredging, paving, construction or demolition of buildings, and adoption or revision of most plans, policies or regulations by a government agency. The intent is to identify environmental impacts that would otherwise "fall through the cracks" and provide a mechanism for public review and mitigation. Jurisdictions have flexibility in setting the thresholds that trigger SEPA review up to the maximum level allowed by the State. If a project is exempt in one category but triggers SEPA in another then SEPA is required. For example a three lot short plat on a hillside would be exempt from SEPA review unless the cut and fill required exceeded 500 cubic yards. Jurisdictions can also take advantage of an optional SEPA process that allows them to identify projects where significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely and combine the comment period on that determination with the notice of application comment period for the underlying permit. The CAP reviewed this proposal on April 10, 2007 and recommended approval of all changes except there was no consensus on raising the threshold for single family construction. At the COW meeting on May 14 the Council opted to send the proposal to NG Page 1 06/28/2007 2:40:00 PM Q:\ CODEAMND \SEPAChanges \7- 9COW_SEPA.DOC 115 116 e • the Planning Commission and ask for their input on the single family threshold. The PC held a hearing on May 24 and supported raising the threshold to 9 dwelling units for single family construction as well as the changes to the commercial threshold and the optional DNS process. The CAP supported the PC recommendations and forwarded the item to COW. ANALYSIS Tukwila and other agencies with permitting authority have a comprehensive set of regulations to control negative impacts in the following areas that are subject to SEPA review: 1. Grading, filling, unstable soil and erosion (Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance, International Building Code, PW Standards) 2. Air emissions (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency) 3. Surface water (wetlands and watercourses), groundwater, and storm water (Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance, King County Surface Water Design Manual) 4. Vegetation and landscaping (Landscape Chapter of the Zoning Code, Tree Ordinance) 5. Animals, endangered species, wildlife habitat (ESA, Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance) 6. Energy and natural resources (Building and Mechanical Codes) 7. Environmental health, hazardous waste and noise (Tukwila Noise Ordinance, Hazardous Waste Regulations, Department of Ecology) 8. Land and shoreline use (Zoning Code, Shoreline Master Program) 9. Housing (IBC, Zoning Code, Design Review) 10. Aesthetics, design review (Design Review) 11. Light and glare (IMC, Zoning Code, Design Review) 12. Recreation (Parks Department, Zoning Code recreation space requirements) 13. Historic and cultural preservation (No listed structures in Tukwila, Archaeological and Paleontological preservation requirements) 14. Transportation, traffic and parking (Level of Service Standards, PW Concurrency Requirements, Transportation Impact Fees, Capital Improvement Program, Zoning Code Parking requirements) 15. Public services (Concurrency Requirements) 16. Utilities, sewer and water concurrency (Concurrency Requirements) Because these codes and standards are already in place we do not often have to rely on SEPA to impose mitigation conditions. Raising the threshold for number of new NG Page 2 06/28/2007 2:40:00 PM Q: \CODEAMND\S EPAChanges\7- 9COW_SEPA.DOC dwelling units to 9 would match the threshold for subdivision review. Raising the threshold for new buildings in commercial/industrial zones to 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces would streamline review of smaller projects. As an example the Claim Jumper restaurant is approximately 12,000 sf. Because SEPA triggers notice requirements some smaller projects that do not require other approvals such as design review would no longer require public notice if the threshold were changed. Short plats for 5 or more lots are required to provide public notice and raising the SEPA threshold would not change that. Very few development proposals require a full environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze impacts and develop mitigation measures. For the vast majority of development in Tukwila the City issues either a determination of non - significance (DNS) or a mitigated determination of non - significance (1VIDNS) after review of the SEPA checklist. The City is authorized under WAC 197 -11 -355 to make this determination early in the review process and combine the SEPA comment period with that of the underlying permit, saving about two weeks of processing time. PROPOSAL Attachment A — Draft SEPA Ordinance • • 18.104.090 Notice of Application - Procedure Notice of Application shall be provided as follows: 1. For all Type 2, 3, 4 and 5 decisions, and Type 1 decisions which require SEPA review, the Notice of Application shall be mailed by first class mail to the applicant and to departments and agencies with jurisdiction, except that a Notice of Application is not required in the case of a Code Interpretation pursuant to TMC 18.96.010 or a Sign Permit Denial pursuant to TMC Chapter 19.12. 2. For Type 1 decisions and Type 2 decisions which require SEPA review, the Notice of Application shall be provided by posting pursuant to TMC 18.104.110, provided that the Notice of Application for a Type 1 decision involving a single- family residence need not be posted but shall be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 3. For short plats of 5 through 9 lots and Type 3, 4 and 5 applications, the Notice of Application shall be posted pursuant to TMC 18.104.110 and mailed pursuant to TMC 18.104.120. Notice requirements for secure community transition facilities shall be in accordance with RCW 71.09.315 as amended. Raise the flexible thresholds for commercial /industrial and residential new construction as shown on the table above. Take advantage of the optional DNS process that allows for concurrent SEPA and project comment periods, see Attachment A for a draft ordinance. REQUESTED ACTION Send the PC recommended changes to the City Council for a final hearing and adoption of an ordinance. NG Page 3 06/28/2007 2:40:00 PM Q:\ CODEAMND \SEPAChanges \7- 9COW_SEPA.DOC 117 • • DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1331 AND 1344, AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 21.04, RAISING CERTAIN THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS THAT INITIATE SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, ADOPTING THE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANT (DNS) PROCESS UNDER WAC 197 -11 -355; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFLCTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, jurisdictions have flexibility in setting the thresholds that trigger SEPA review up to the maximum level allowed by the State; and WHEREAS, raising the flexible thresholds for new construction would streamline permit review for smaller projects; and WHEREAS, very few development proposals require a full environmental impact statement to analyze impacts and develop mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, adopting the optional DNS process allows for a more efficient review process; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments, and has recommended the adoption of certain environmental regulation changes; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendments July 16, 2007, after proper notice; and WHEREAS, after having received and studied staff analysis, the City Council believes that certain amendments to the City's development regulations are desirable; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 1331 §10, as codified at TMC 21.04.080, is hereby amended to read as follows: 21.04.080 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations - Adoption by reference The City adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference as supplemented in this chapter: 197 -11 -300 Purpose of this part 197 -11 -305 Categorical exemptions 197 -11 -310 Threshold determination required 197 -11 -315 Environmental check list 197 -11 -330 Threshold determination process C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop\Keii) MSDATA \Ordinances\SEPA Review.doc NG:Icsn 7/5/2007 Page 1 of 2 47raC kriteT 119 120 • 197 -11 -335 Additional information 197 -11 -340 Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) 197 -11 -350 Mitigated DNS 197 -11 -355 Optional DNS process 197 -11 -360 Determination of Significance (DS) /initiation of scoping 197 -11 -390 Effect of threshold determination Section 2. Ordinance Nos. 1331 §11 and 1344 §6, as codified at TMC 21.04.110, are hereby amended to read as follows: 21.04.110 Categorical exemptions- flexible thresholds A. The City establishes the following exempt levels for minor new construction based on local conditions: 1. For residential dwelling units in WAC 197 - 11-800 (1)(b)(i) up to fettF nine dwelling units. feet. 2. For agricultural structures in WAC 197 - 11-800 (1)(b)(ii) up to 10,000 square 3. For office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings in WAC 197 - 11-800 (1)(b)(iii), up to 409 12,000 square feet, and up to 29 40 parking spaces. 4. For parking lots in WAC 197 -11- 800 (1)(b)(iv), up to 40 parking spaces. 5. For landfills and excavations in WAC 197 - 11-800 (1)(b)(v), up to 500 cubic yards. B. The responsible official shall send copies of all adopted flexible thresholds to the Department of Ecology, headquarters office, Olympia, Washington. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2007. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney Steven M. Mullet, Mayor C:\Documents and Settings \All Users\ Desktop \Kelly\MSDATA\Ordinances\SEPA Review.doc NG:ksn 715/2007 • • Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Page 2 of 2 COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes June 26, 2007- 5:00 p.m. PRESENT Councilmembers: Pam Linder, Chair; Pam Carter and Dennis Robertson Staff: Jack Pace, Nora Gierloff and Kimberly Matej Guest: Chuck Parrish CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Linder called the meeting to order at 4:57 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. City of Tukwila Community Affairs & Parks Committee II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Sensitive Areas Ordinance The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) amendment is returning to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee since it was first heard on April 24, 2007. On April 24 the Committee suggested some minor language changes, and chose to forward it to the COW for discussion. The COW, in turn, chose to forward the amendment to the Planning Commission for review. After the Planning Commission held a public hearing, they recommended approval of the SAO amendment as written. With the exception of minor language changes, this is the same amendment that the Committee reviewed previously. In summary, the amendment addresses off -site mitigation and the amount of mitigation built into the value of a credit in a mitigation bank. The current ordinance, as written, does not address the issue of mitigation banks and is not straightforward on mitigation ratios. The proposed changes will allow the DCD Director to establish a ratio for mitigation acreage in comparison to wetland bank credits for off -site mitigation. The process will allow a certain number of mitigation bank credits to be required for impact at a specific mitigation bank in comparison to the impact made by development of the sensitive area in question. The Committee expressed their concern with mitigations occurring outside of the City when there are some sensitive areas within the City that will require funding in the upcoming years. Staff is aware of these concerns and understands the priority of on and off -site mitigation. Staff reminded the Committee that river areas cannot be utilized for wetland mitigation. The Committee is in favor of forwarding the SAO amendment to the COW for discussion. Additionally, the Committee feels that it would be in the best interest of the full Council for DCD to include a brief summary of the status of Type 2, 3 and 4 projects resulting in administrative decisions in their quarterly report. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. B. Code Amendment - SEPA The amendment in question for SEPA was previously heard by the Committee on April 10, 2007. At that time, the Committee was not in consensus of the portion of the proposal which would ---X-- raise the residential construction from Tukwila's current threshold of four dwelling units to nine dwelling units. The proposal was sent to the COW for discussion. The COW chose to forward the amendment to the Planning Commission for review on the residential as well as commercial 121 >er 122 110 41 Community Affairs & Parks Committee Minutes June 26, 2007— Page 2 thresholds and an optional DNS process. After the Planning Commission held a public hearing, they recommended approval of the proposed amendment of increasing the residential construction threshold to nine dwelling units from four dwelling units; increasing the commercial/industrial threshold to 12,000 square feet and 40 parking spaces from 4,000 square feet and 20 parking spaces; and exercising the optional determination of non - significance (DNS) process to run concurrent comment periods for the project and SEPA. Staff commented that when the City originally implemented SEPA, we did not yet have an SAO in place. The Committee supports the Planning Commission recommendation. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. C. Zoning Code Amendments Staff brought forth four proposed Zoning Code amendments. 1. Limitation on single family expansions with non - conforming setbacks 2. Retaining wall setback changes 3. Administrative variance for single family lot size 4. Update to Permit Application Table at 'FMC 18.104.010 These amendments were originally introduced at the April 10, 2007, Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting. They were then forwarded to COW for discussion, and from there to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and subsequent recommendation. After a lengthy discussion, the Committee agreed to forward Amendments 1 and 4 to the COW for discussion, and they are in support of the Planning Commission's recommendations for those amendments. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL FOR AMENDMENTS 1 and 4. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. In regards to Amendment 2, Retaining Wall Setback Changes, Dennis expressed concern with the wording of number four of the setback waiver. His concern is that number four will nullify the parameters set forth in numbers one through three if the applicant can attribute their need for a retaining wall to fire access requirements. Dennis would like to draft a proposed wording change for number four that staff can submit for consideration along with the Planning Commission recommendation when the amendment moves forward to the COW for further discussion. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. The Committee is not in consensus with Amendment 3, Administrative Variance for Single Family Lot Size. Both Pam Linder and Pam Carter feel that the changes proposed by the amendment do not create provisions that would substantially affect the quality of life for Tukwila's single family home residents; and that the 500 square foot variance will allow for flexibility assisting interested property owners who are minimally under the threshold for subdivision. In contrast, Dennis shared his concern for property owners who bought in a particular location as a result of spatial housing and lot sizes. He does not support this amendment because he feels implementation of such variances for lot subdivisions has the potential to disturb the well -being of neighborhoods with the consideration that the majority of homeowners purchased their home because of the lot size layout and prefer for the lot sizes to be maintained as such. COMMITTEE IS NOT IN CONSENSUS. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. Meeting Date Prepared by ft Major's review Council review 05/14/07 JP 07/09/07 COUNCIL AGENDI SYNOPSIS ITEM INFORMATIC ITEM No. 3 0( (0)) CAS NUMBER: 07-057 AGENDA ITEM TITLE SAO Mitigation Ratio for Wetland Banks CATEGORY Z Discussion MtgDate 07/9/07 5-14-07 7-9-07 M'TG DATE 5-14-07 7-9-07 El Resolution Mtg Date ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: MAY 14, 2007 Z Ordinance Mtg Date 07/16/07 Bid Aviard Mtg Date Z Public Hearing Mtg Date 07/16/07 ril Other Mtg Date Motion LI Mtg Date SPONSOR E Council El Mayor LJ Adm Svcs Z DCD fl Finance D Fire El Legal fl P&R D Police El PTV The proposal is to amend the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) to allow the Director to establish a mitigation ratio that meets the intent of the SAO for specific wetland mitigation banks. SPONSOR'S SUMMARY F&S Cmte [I Parks Comm. LI Transportation Cmte Z Planning Comm. REVIEWED BY Z COW Mtg. CA&P Cmte 11:1 Utilities Cmte I:1 Arts Comm DATE: 4-24-07, 7/9/07 (CAP), 5/14/07 (COW), 5/24/07 (PC), 7/9/07 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. Hold a public hearing on the ordinance CommrrrEE Forward to full Council for consideration COST 'IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $0 AMOUNT BUDGETED $0 APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $0 Fund Source: N/A Comments: ECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION Forward to Planning Commission for a recommendation • AtTACHMENTS Information Memo dated 5/8/07 with Attachments Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 4/24/07 Information Memo dated 6/28/07 with Attachments Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 6/26/07 123 • • INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet Committee of the Whole From: Jack Pace, Acting Director Department of Community Develop Date: June 28, 2007 Subject: Code Amendment — Sensitive Areas Ordinance ISSUE Should the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) be amended to allow the DCD Director to establish a mitigation ratio on a case -by -case basis for off -site mitigation carried out at a wetland mitigation bank? BACKGROUND The CAP discussed this at their April 24 meeting. They had some suggested changes to the code language which have been incorporated into the proposal but did not have a consensus recommendation. The COW discussed this at the May 14 meeting and while they opted to forward the amendment on to the PC there were concerns about the use of mitigation sites outside of Tukwila and the degree of flexibility granted to the DCD Director's decision. The PC held a public hearing on May 24 and discussed the desirability of mitigation sites within Tukwila and the Director's special permission decision - making process, though they ultimately recommended approval of the amendment as written. The CAP reviewed the issue on June 26 and opted to forward the amendment to the COW unchanged. DISCUSSION Only isolated Type 3 wetlands or wetlands in the path of an essential public facility may be filled and mitigated off -site under the City's Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO). This off -site mitigation requires a Special Permission approval from the DCD Director, and may be inside or outside the city limits of Tukwila as long as the mitigation site is within the same river basin, see criteria at TMC 18.45.090 E listed in Attachment A. The current proposal would not change this process or the criteria that must be met. Tukwila's Urban Environmentalist has investigated the opportunities for off -site mitigation in Tukwila, including establishment of a wetland mitigation bank, and has found them to be limited. Staff's recommendation was to make appropriate City -owned properties available for individual mitigation projects that would be designed and implemented by the developer, see a CL Page 1 of 3 06/28/2007 8:57:00 AM Q:\2007 SAO Amendment \CAP Memo.doc 125 126 • • + • summary of the "Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Program for Tukwila" report at Attachment B. The Council adopted this policy direction in Resolution 1608. However due to the limited area available for creation and enhancement these sites are unable to meet the mitigation needs of larger projects. Wetland mitigation banking as a tool for off setting unavoidable impacts to wetlands is increasingly becoming more important, and the City is starting to see proposals for off -site mitigation at banks. A wetland mitigation bank is the consolidation of small, fragmented wetland mitigation projects into a large contiguous site where creation, restoration and enhancement is carried out in advance of the impacts. Banks are established under a formal and rigorous permitting process that establishes how many wetland mitigation "credits" will be available for sale. The mitigation ratios established in the SAO apply to both on -site and off -site mitigation and are used to determine a mitigation area requirement when multiplied by the acreage of fill or impact due to the project. The SAO does not address transferring mitigation to a mitigation bank, which uses credits as opposed to acreage in determining the amount of mitigation needed. Determining the number of mitigation bank credits needed to meet the City's mitigation ratios is not straightforward. Credits in a mitigation bank are based on the net ecological benefit provided and are determined on the basis of Department of Ecology mitigation ratios, the kinds of mitigation carried out at the bank (wetland creation, restoration, and/or enhancement), the type (class) of wetland that has been created, rehabilitated or enhanced and the total acreage for each type of mitigation. The number of credits needed for mitigation is based on the type (classification) of the wetland being impacted. The amount of mitigation built into the value of a credit does not directly equate to Tukwila's SAO mitigation ratios, which are based on acreage impacted and do not distinguish between types of wetlands in applying the mitigation ratios. Mitigation ratios applied to projects that are carrying out wetland mitigation in conjunction with a development project are typically higher than those ratios in a mitigation bank, because they factor in the element of risk that the wetland mitigation might fail. In wetland mitigation banks, however, the theory is that the wetland will already be mitigated well in advance of any development proposal — thus reducing the risk of mitigation failure (if the bank fails, credits cannot be released). The Springbrook mitigation bank established by the City of Renton and WSDOT was reviewed and approved by the State Department of Ecology, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Federal Highway Administration and underwent rigorous review for compliance with both State and Federal requirements for wetland and stream protection and restoration. This review process is required for the establishment of any mitigation bank. See Attachment C for the relationship between the acreage of mitigation, ratio applied and resulting credit value at the Springbrook Creek Bank in Renton. NG Page 2 of 3 06/28/2007 8:57:00 AM Q:\CODEAMND\WetlandBank\SA07-9COW.DOC • The City recently processed two land use applications submitted by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) seeking approval to transfer mitigation for impacts to wetlands along Hwy 518 and I -405 to the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank, a mitigation bank area of over 125 acres located in Renton. The location of the highway construction on both Hwy 518 and I -405 and the sensitive areas made it difficult to find room to adequately mitigate for wetland impacts in the remaining right -of -way. In addition, the size of the remaining sensitive areas available in the right -of -way would limit the effectiveness of any mitigation implemented. Thus off -site mitigation made sense in these two cases. WSDOT proposed withdrawal of a certain number of credits from the bank as the proposed wetland mitigation. This issue will arise again when applications are submitted for the Strander Blvd. extension, which will disturb Type 1 wetlands. The City of Renton will be requesting permission to carry out wetland mitigation in the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. WSDOT will also likely want to use the bank for future highway construction in Tukwila. Unless our SAO is amended to permit a determination of the equivalency of a specific bank's credits to the mitigation area required per our SAO requirements we will not be able to ensure that the net ecological benefits at the mitigation bank compensate for the wetland impacts. The current proposal would not change the process or the criteria for approval of off -site mitigation. If permission is granted for off -site mitigation the applicant must identify a site capable of providing an equivalent ecological benefit to the filled wetlands. The argument for carrying out the mitigation at a Mitigation Bank is that mitigation is completed in advance of impacts and generally results in improved hydrologic, water quality and habitat functions in a consolidated location. Studies of wetland mitigation banks have shown this to be true as long as the mitigation bank is maintained and monitored. Staff recommends amending the SAO as identified in Attachment A to permit the DCD Director to establish a ratio of mitigation acreage to wetland bank credit for off -site mitigation proposed in wetland mitigation banks that have been approved by appropriate agencies. This would be a Type 2 decision, similar to most of the other discretionary approvals in the SAO. REQUESTED ACTION Send the PC endorsed changes to a final public hearing and adoption of the ordinance as written or amended. Attachment A — Draft Ordinance Attachment B — Summary of the "Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Program for Tukwila" Report Attachment C — Springbrook Creek Mitigation Credit Table NG Page 3 of 3 06/28/2007 8:57:00 AM Q:\ CODEAMND \WetlandBank\SA07- 9COW.DOC 127 128 i D AFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2074, AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.45, TO CREATE A PROCESS FOR DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF WETLAND MITIGATION CREDITS REQUIRED FOR OFF -SITE MITIGATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance does not currently address a method for determining the number of wetland mitigation bank credits needed for a specific off -site mitigation project; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments that would create a decision process and criteria for the determination of the number of wetland mitigation credits required for off -site mitigation, and has recommended the adoption of certain Zoning Code changes; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on these proposed amendments on July 16, 2007, after proper notice; and WHEREAS, after having received and studied staff analysis, the City Council believes these amendments to the City's sensitive area regulations are desirable; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 2074 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.45.090, is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.45.090 Wetlands Uses, Alterations and Mitigation A. No use or development may occur in a Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3 wetland or its buffer except as specifically allowed by TMC Chapter 18.45. Any use or development allowed is subject to review and approval by the Director. Where required, a mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45. B. Alterations 1. Alterations to wetlands are discouraged and are limited to the minimum necessary for project feasibility. Requests for alterations must be accompanied by a mitigation plan, are subject to Director approval, and may be approved only if the following findings are made: a. The alteration will not adversely affect water quality; b. The alteration will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitat; and • • c. The alteration will not have an adverse effect on drainage and/ or storm water detention capabilities; d. The alteration will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create an erosion hazard or contribute to scouring actions; e. The alteration will not be materially detrimental to any other property; f. The alteration will not have adverse effects on any other sensitive areas. 2. Alterations are not permitted to Type 1 wetlands unless specifically exempted under the provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45. 3. Alterations to Type 2 wetlands are prohibited except where the location or configuration of the wetland provides practical difficulties that can be resolved by modifying up to .10 (one -tenth) of an acre of wetland. Mitigation for any alteration to a Type 2 wetland must be provided at a ratio of 1.5:1 for creation or restoration and 3:1 for enhancement and must be located contiguous to the altered wetland. 4. Isolated Type 3 wetlands may be altered or relocated only with the permission of the Director. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45. 5. Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging, filling, alterations and relocation of wetland habitat allowed in TMC Chapter 18.45. 6. Isolated wetlands formed on fill material in highly disturbed environmental conditions and assessed as having low overall wetland functions may be altered and /or relocated under TMC Chapter 18.45. These wetlands may include artificial hydrology or wetlands unintentionally created as the result of construction activities. The determination that a wetland is isolated is made through the Type 2 permit process. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45. C. Mitigation Sequencing. Applicants shall demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers. When an alteration to a wetland or its required buffer is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized or compensated for in the following order of preference: 1. Avoidance of wetland and wetland buffer impacts, whether by finding another site or changing the location of the proposed activity on -site. 2. Minimizing wetland and wetland buffer impacts by limiting the degree of impact on site. • 3. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing, enhancing, or substitution shall occur in the following order of preference: a. restoring wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands; b. enhancing significantly degraded wetlands; c. creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species or noxious weeds. D. Mitigation Plans. 1. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a sensitive area study by a specialist approved by the Director. Wetland and /or buffer alteration or relocation C:\Documents and SettingsWll Users\Desktop\Ketly\MSDATA \Ordinances \Wetland Mitigation Credits.doe GL:Icsn 7/52007 Page 2 of 5 129 130 • may be allowed only when a mitigation plan clearly demonstrates that the changes would be an improvement of wetland and buffer quantitative and qualitative functions. The plan shall follow the performance standards of TMC Chapter 18.45 and show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general wetland quality would be improved. 2. In order to achieve the City's goal of no net loss of wetland functions and acreage, alteration of wetlands will require the applicant to provide a restoration or creation plan to compensate for the impacts to the wetland and will compensate at a ratio of 1.5 :1. 3. Impacts to wetlands may be mitigated by enhancement of existing significantly degraded wetlands; however, in order to achieve the City's goal of no net loss of wetland functions and acreage, mitigation through enhancement must be compensated at a ratio of 3:1. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce a sensitive area study that identifies how enhancement will increase the functions of the degraded wetland and how this increase will adequately mitigate for the loss of wetland area and function at the impact site. An enhancement proposal must also show whether existing wetland functions will be reduced by the enhancement actions. 4. The DCD Director may approve, through a Type 2 decision, the transfer of mitigation to a wetland mitigation bank using the criteria in 4.a. through 4.d below. The Director must determine the number of wetland mitigation bank credits required to meet the mitigation ratios established in TMC Chapter 18.45. a. Off -site mitigation is proposed in a wetland mitigation bank that has been approved by all appropriate agencies, including the Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, EPA or other regulatory agencies; and b. The applicant provides a justification for the number of credits proposed; and c. The mitigation achieved through the number of credits required meets the intent of TMC Chapter 18.45; and d. The Director bases the decision on a written staff report, evaluating the equivalence of the lost wetland functions with the number of wetland credits required. E. Mitigation Location. 1. On -site mitigation shall be provided, except where the applicant can demonstrate that a. On -site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves or other factors; or b. Mitigation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding land uses; or c. Existing functional values created at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or d. Established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site. 2. Off -site mitigation shall occur within the same watershed where the wetland loss occurred. C:1Documents and SettingsMll Users \DesktopUCdIy MSDATA\Grdinanccs\Wetland Mitigation Cmdits.doc GL:ksn 7/52007 • Page 3 of 5 occurred. • • 3. Mitigation sites located within the Tukwila city limits are preferred. However, the Director may approve mitigation sites outside the city upon finding that a. Adequate measures have been taken to ensure the non - development and long -term viability of the mitigation site; and b. Adequate coordination with the other affected local jurisdiction has 4. In selecting mitigation sites, applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of preference: a. Upland sites that were formerly wetlands; b. Idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds or emergent vegetation; c. Other disturbed upland; d. Existing degraded wetland. F. Mitigation Standards. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The components of a complete wetlands mitigation plan are as follows: 1. Baseline information of quantitative data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site. 2. Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should include a description of site - selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species, and resource functions. 3. Performance standards of the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. 4. A detailed construction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence and construction management, and be accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal. 5. Monitoring and /or evaluation program that outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress. 6. Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met. 7. Performance security or other assurance devices as described in TMC 18.45.210. G. Mitigation Timing. Mitigation projects shall be completed prior to activities that will permanently disturb wetlands and either prior to or immediately after activities that will temporarily disturb wetlands. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife, flora and water quality, and shall be completed prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. The Director may C:\Documents and Settings\All Users \DesMop\Kelly\MSDATA \ Ordinances \Wetland Mitigation Credits.doc GL:ksn 7/52007 Page 4 of 5 131 132 allow activities that permanently disturb wetlands prior to implementation of the mitigation plan under the following circumstances: 1. To allow planting or re- vegetation to occur during optimal weather conditions; 2. To avoid disturbance during critical wildlife periods; or 3. To account for unique site constraints that dictate construction timing or phasing. H. Permitted Uses Subject to Exception Approval. Other uses may be permitted upon receiving a reasonable use exception pursuant to TMC 18.45.180. A use permitted through a reasonable use exception shall conform to the procedures of TMC Chapter 18.45 and be consistent with the underlying zoning. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2007. ATTEST / AUTHENTICA'I Ell: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: C:\Documcnts and SettingsWll Users\ Desktop\Ke!lyyMSDATA\Ordinances \Wetland Mitigation Credits.doc GL:ksn 7152007 Page 5 of 5 • • STAFF REPORT OFF-SITE WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM FOR TUKWILA April 17, 2006 Attachment B13 134 • • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction In an effort to address the increasing pressure for development in Tukwila on properties that have wetlands, staff is proposing a program for off -site wetland mitigation when on- site alternatives are not adequate. The program has been conceived as a way to help facilitate development, particularly for small developers, while at the same time providing an innovative mechanism for mitigating wetland impacts. It could be beneficial environmentally, by directing mitigation for many small wetland losses to larger or more highly functioning sites. This report summarizes the key points of a study carried out by staff, with the support of a wetland consultant. It also establishes program objectives and components, presents conceptual mitigation plans for selected sites on city -owned properties, and identifies the next steps necessary for implementing the program. Regulatory and Planning Context As part of the study, staff analyzed the regulatory and planning context related to wetland mitigation. Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC18.45) establishes mitigation sequencing that first requires avoidance of wetland impacts, then minimization of impacts, and finally compensation through mitigation. It allows for off -site mitigation under certain circumstances. The proposed program respects the intent of the ordinance. The US Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology also regulate wetland impacts, but the Corps does not have jurisdiction over isolated wetlands (those not "connected" hydrologically to waters of the United States). The proposed program would be limited, at least initially, to wetlands not regulated by the Corps. Tukwila's commitment to implementing the WRIA 9 Salmon Enhancement Plan is also an important consideration when thinking about off -site wetland mitigation, as some wetland mitigation projects could be directed to also enhancing salmon habitat, thus achieving some of the objectives of the plan. Alternative Wetland Mitigation Management Approaches Staff evaluated three alternative wetland mitigation management instruments that could be used to implement the program: 1) Alternative 1: wetland banking; 2) Alternative 2: consolidated mitigation at designated sites; and 3) Alternative 3: in -lieu fee program S. Whiting i 04/24/2006 12:11:00 PM Q:11 TUK21VOL31HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT \FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT • • Wetland banking (Alternative 1) would require the City to implement mitigation up front at a designated site and later "sell" credits to developers, that need to do off -site wetland mitigation. This approach would require a complicated and lengthy authorization process with the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology. Consolidated mitigation (Alternative 2) would be an informal program that directs off - site mitigation to designated sites (both City -owned and privately -owned properties), but the mitigation would be carried out by the developer under City supervision. An in -lieu fee program (Alternative 3) would establish fees to be charged to developers in -lieu of them carrying out wetland mitigation. The City would then use the fees to implement a mitigation plan and to conduct ongoing monitoring and maintenance. The following table summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Instrument Wetland Mitigation Bank Consolidated mitigation at designated sites (city and privately -owned sites) In -lieu fee program at designated sites Advantages Consolidates mitigation for greater environmental benefit Mitigation in advance, ensures success, no lag between impact and mitigation Consolidates mitigation for greater environmental benefit Applicants would prepare and carry out detailed mitigation plans under City oversight Minimal lag time between impact and mitigation Potential for coordinating with WRIA 9 projects Could consolidate mitigation for greater environmental benefit Mitigation would be entirely under City control Would allow for fees to be contributed towards WRIA 9 projects with wetland components Disadvantages Difficult and lengthy process for set -up City (or other sponsor) would have to fund mitigation up -front Risk of not being able to sell credits/recoup investment Potential adverse environmental impacts to some existing wetlands due to repeated interventions over time Possible long period between when impact occurs and mitigation takes place Risk of not receiving enough fees to carry out a full mitigation or long -term maintenance Risk of cost overruns that would have to be borne by City Comments No suitable city - owned sites available Not as feasible for Macadam or Green River sites unless a proposed project needed a medium to large site for mitigation. Actual availability over time of privately owned sites is uncertain Modification to TMC 18.45 needed Sufficient staff needed to implement (contracting, construction oversight, monitoring, long -term maintenance) S. Whiting ii 04/24/2006 12:11:00 PM Q: \\ TUK2 \VOL3\HOME\SANDRA \WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL \WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 135 136 • • Identification of Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites on City -Owned Land Staff mapped all City -owned sites and overlaid this information on the Sensitive Areas Map to determine possible locations suitable for wetland creation or enhancement. Criteria were applied for evaluating the sites and Public Works, the Fire Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department were consulted in the process to ensure that there were no conflicts with future proposed uses of the sites. The results of the analysis of available sites for wetland mitigation indicate that: • feasible sites do not exist for every sub -basin where there is potential demand; • it will not be possible to achieve "in- kind" mitigation in every case (i.e. to match wetland classifications between the wetlands impacted and the wetland sites to be used for mitigation); and • Tukwila suffers from a shortage of suitable areas on City -owned land (and in general) and there are no large amounts of contiguous acreage that would be suitable as a large bank or mitigation site. As a result of this effort, three sites were initially identified for preparation of conceptual mitigation plans: 1) Macadam wetlands, located on the east side of Macadam Road and just south of S. 144 (mostly south of the proposed Winter Garden). A small amount of wetland creation and considerable wetland enhancement would be possible at this site and would also complement the Winter Garden project. Buffers would not be extended any further on to private property. 2) Fire Station 53 (undeveloped portion), located 4202 S. 115 behind the fire station. This site presents opportunities for wetland enhancement and a small amount of creation, without causing buffers to be expanded. 3) A site on the Green River, located adjacent to and north of the Riverview Plaza development, and across the river from the Best Western Hotel. The site has an upper and lower bicycle trail managed by the Parks Department. The lower trail periodically floods during high water. The site presents an opportunity for wetland creation along the river (while leaving the upper trail in place) that would also provide off - channel salmon habitat. An access point for boat launching could also be incorporated into the project. Additional city -owned sites, such as Tukwila Pond, could be candidates for off -site mitigation in the future. S. Whiting iii 04/24/2006 12:11:00 PM Q: \\ TUK2 \VOL3\HOME\SANDRA \WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORTFINAL \WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT • • Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites on Private Property Off -site wetland mitigation on private properties is allowed under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and is already an established practice in Tukwila. However, with the idea of helping to facilitate off -site mitigation, especially for small developments, staff researched the availability of privately -owned sites in Tukwila. The idea would be to serve as a matchmaker between developers needing mitigation sites and property owners interested in making their sites available for mitigation. Negotiations regarding financial compensation and easements would be between the property owner and the developer. We identified potential wetland mitigation sites on privately -owned properties using the same process and criteria that were used for identifying city -owned sites and began contacting the property owners to see if they would be interested in the program. Staff has been unable to reach all of the property owners as of this writing, but some interest by has been expressed those reached. Recommended Approach Staff recommends the consolidated mitigation approach, using designated City or privately -owned properties, but requiring that the developer be responsible for preparation and implementation of detailed mitigation plans under the City's oversight. The consolidated mitigation approach could work well at Fire Station 53, where there are separate, well - defined small sections of the site that could be mitigated by different applicants at different times. The Macadam site would best accommodate one or two large projects to avoid repeated interventions into the wetland. Smaller projects are not out of the question, but this would require very careful planning and coordination to accommodate small projects. The Green River site would be better suited to large projects (such as a WSDOT or Sound Transit project), where a one -time intervention would be preferable due to costs and to minimize negative impacts. The consolidated approach could lend itself to supporting WRIA 9 projects in some circumstances, where a WRIA 9 project is underway or close to starting up, and an applicant could provide part of the restoration as mitigation (such as purchasing plants, planting, or some other discrete task related to the restoration project). In order to implement the proposed plan staff is seeking CAP Committee approval of program and a Council resolution approving the use of City properties for wetland mitigation under the program and establishing criteria for determining fees on a case -by- case basis. S. Whiting iv 04/24/2006 12:11:00 PM Q: \\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA \WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORTFINAL \WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 137 Mitigation Treatment Acreage Ratios* Mitigation Credits*' Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit D Unit E Total Wetland Re- Establishment 17.79 1:1 0.05 0.12 9.27 - 8.35 17.79 Wetland Rehabilitation 52.14 3:1 6.64 10.39 0.35 - - 17.38 Wetland Enhancement - Type I 4.69 4:1 - - 1.17 - - 1.17 Wetland Enhancement - Type II 2.63 5:1 - - - 0.53 - 0.53 Forested Wetland Enhancement 25.22 5:1 - - 4.65 0.40 - 5.05 Riparian Upland Enhancement 6.56 4:1 0.16 0.37 - - 1.11 1.64 Upland Habitat Enhancement 7.80 5:1 - - 1.56 - - 1.56 Buffer Enhancement 9.89 - - - - - - - Trail Zone 2.66 -- -- -- - - - -- Totals 129.37 - 6.85 10.88 17.00 0.93 9.46 45.12 s ** • FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument 4.0 BANK OPERATION 4.1 CREDIT DETERMINATION Credits are the "currency" of a mitigation bank. The value of credits that a mitigation bank generates equals its net ecological benefit. The 129.37 -acre Springbrook Bank includes 116.82 acres that qualify for bank credit. The remaining 12.55 non - credit acres have been designated for protection setback and the Trail Zone to minimize disturbances from adjacent roads, development, and the trail through Unit A. Units D and E each have an existing 20 -foot utility easement inside the parcel boundary that will not generate mitigation credit (see Figures 2 -4 and 2 -3). The 45.12 credits expected to be generated at Springbrook Bank represents the number of acres of impacts to Category II wetlands (Hruby 2004) for which the bank could be used as compensation (Table 4 -1). These mitigation credits will become available as performance standards and other measures are achieved (see Tables 3 -1 through 3 -4 and Table 4 -3). The precise number of credits actually generated by the Springbrook Bank cannot be determined until the project is constructed and the success of restoration and enhancement activities is assessed by the BOC. The final number of credits will be determined by the BOC and will be based on achievement of the performance standards. Table 4-1. Credit Potential The ratio of acreage to credits is the number of credits established per acre of mitigation activity in first column. The number of mitigation credits that Springbrook Bank will generate for each mitigation treatment. Each credit can compensate for the loss of a typical acre of Category II wetland. 4.2 APPROVING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CREDIT RELEASE Springbrook Bank is expected to generate 45.12 credits that will be eligible for release as the associated performance standards are met and approved by the BOC (Tables 3 -1 through 3 -4), with the exception that no credits may be released until a BOC- approved Memorandum of Agreement and Instrument are signed by the Sponsors, Ecology, and the Corps, and until a BOC- approved conservation easement is placed on the property title Attachment C 13 8 Chapter 4 Bank Operation • • COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes City of Tukwila Community Affairs & Parks Committee June 26, 2007- 5:00 p.m. PRESENT Councilmembers: Pam Linder, Chair; Pam Carter and Dennis Robertson Staff: Jack Pace, Nora Gierloff and Kimberly Matej Guest: Chuck Parrish CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Linder called the meeting to order at 4:57 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. H. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Sensitive Areas Ordinance The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) amendment is returning to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee since it was first heard on April 24, 2007. On April 24 the Committee suggested some minor language changes, and chose to forward it to the COW for discussion. The COW, in turn, chose to forward the amendment to the Planning Commission for review. After the Planning Commission held a public hearing, they recommended approval of the SAO amendment as written. With the exception of minor language changes, this is the same amendment that the Committee reviewed previously. In summary, the amendment addresses off -site mitigation and the amount of mitigation built into the value of a credit in a mitigation bank. The current ordinance, as written, does not address the issue of mitigation banks and is not straightforward on mitigation ratios. The proposed changes will allow the DCD Director to establish a ratio for mitigation acreage in comparison to wetland bank credits for off -site mitigation. The process will allow a certain number of mitigation bank credits to be required for impact at a specific mitigation bank in comparison to the impact made by development of the sensitive area in question. The Committee expressed their concern with mitigations occurring outside of the City when there are some sensitive areas within the City that will require funding in the upcoming years. Staff is aware of these concerns and understands the priority of on and off -site mitigation. Staff reminded the Committee that river areas cannot be utilized for wetland mitigation. The Committee is in favor of forwarding the SAO amendment to the COW for discussion. Additionally, the Committee feels that it would be in the best interest of the full Council for DCD to include a brief summary of the status of Type 2, 3 and 4 projects resulting in administrative decisions in their quarterly report. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. B. Code Amendment - SEPA The amendment in question for SEPA was previously heard by the Committee on April 10, 2007. At that time, the Committee was not in consensus of the portion of the proposal which would raise the residential construction from Tukwila's current threshold of four dwelling units to nine dwelling units. The proposal was sent to the COW for discussion. The COW chose to forward the amendment to the Planning Commission for review on the residential as well as commercial 139 Meetin Date P •a ; %� M or's review , :- _boorm ymcil review 07 09 07 JP r�� ❑ Other Mtg Date CATEGORY / 1 Discussion ►1 Ordinance Mtg Date 07/16/07 ■ Mtg Date 07/16/07 n Wf AGENDA ITEM TITLE COUNCIL A GEND SYNOPSIS Initials EM INFOR.MATIO ITEM No. 3 ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: JULY 9, 2007 c CAS NUMBER: 07 - V O Zoning Code amendments addressing expansion into non - conforming setbacks, retaining wall setbacks, administrative lot area variance in LDR and housekeeping. SPONSOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Hold a public hearing on the draft ordinances Comm' COMI h.E Forward to COW 7 -9 -07 MTG. DATE 7 -9 -07 CO ST ;IMPACT ND `SOURC j EXPENDITURE REQUIR $0 AMOUNT BUDGETED $0 APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $0 Fund Source: N/A Comments: ECORD; OF COUNCIL ACTI ATTACHMENTS Information Memo dated 6/28/07 with Attachments Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 6/26/07 SPONSOR El Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Adm Svcs ® DCD ❑ Finance ❑ F ire ❑ L ega l ❑ Pd1 ❑ P o l ice [, Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for SUMMARY consideration: 1) Limitation on single family expansions within non - conforming setbacks; 2) Retaining wall setback changes; 3) Administrative variance for single family lot size; and 4) Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010. REVIEWED BY ❑ COW Mtg. ® CA &P Cmte ❑ F &S Cmte ❑ Transportation Cmte ❑ Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ® Planning Comm. DATE: 4/10/07, 6/26/07 (CAP), 5/24/07 (PC) 141 t J VtwJ L' ❑ Motion Mtg Date WYVk►o, ❑ Resolution Mtg Date ❑ Bid Award Mtg Date . Public Hearing ❑ Other Mtg Date CATEGORY / 1 Discussion ►1 Ordinance Mtg Date 07/16/07 Mtg Date 7/9/07 Mtg Date 07/16/07 n Wf AGENDA ITEM TITLE COUNCIL A GEND SYNOPSIS Initials EM INFOR.MATIO ITEM No. 3 ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: JULY 9, 2007 c CAS NUMBER: 07 - V O Zoning Code amendments addressing expansion into non - conforming setbacks, retaining wall setbacks, administrative lot area variance in LDR and housekeeping. SPONSOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Hold a public hearing on the draft ordinances Comm' COMI h.E Forward to COW 7 -9 -07 MTG. DATE 7 -9 -07 CO ST ;IMPACT ND `SOURC j EXPENDITURE REQUIR $0 AMOUNT BUDGETED $0 APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $0 Fund Source: N/A Comments: ECORD; OF COUNCIL ACTI ATTACHMENTS Information Memo dated 6/28/07 with Attachments Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 6/26/07 SPONSOR El Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Adm Svcs ® DCD ❑ Finance ❑ F ire ❑ L ega l ❑ Pd1 ❑ P o l ice [, Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for SUMMARY consideration: 1) Limitation on single family expansions within non - conforming setbacks; 2) Retaining wall setback changes; 3) Administrative variance for single family lot size; and 4) Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010. REVIEWED BY ❑ COW Mtg. ® CA &P Cmte ❑ F &S Cmte ❑ Transportation Cmte ❑ Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ® Planning Comm. DATE: 4/10/07, 6/26/07 (CAP), 5/24/07 (PC) 141 TO: Mayor Mullet Committee of the Whole FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Direc DATE: June 28, 2007 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendments Q: \CODEAMND\2007Amend 9 COW.DOC • • INFORMATIONMEMORANDU BACKGROUND Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for consideration: 4) Limitation on single family expansions within non - conforming setbacks; 5) Retaining wall setback changes; M Administrative variance for single family lot size; and Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010. Staff presented these issues with various options to the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP) Committee on April 10, 2007. The Committee recommendat onhThe PC made only minors changes the Planning Commission for a hearing and their recommendations are reflected in the strikeout/underline language listed in the attached draft ordinances. The CAP reviewed the issues again on June 26 and recommended forwarding all items to the July 9 meeting. Councilmember Robinson suggested some revised language for item 2, it is listed below. There was not consensus among the Committee on item 3. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS A. Limitation on Additions to Homes that Do Not meet Setbacks TMC 18.70.050 (6) states "single family structures in single or multiple family zone districts, which have legally non - conforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand along the existing building line(s) if the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the property line is not reduced." This provision has been used in ways that significantly increase the area of non - conformity and impact upon the neighboring property. The PC recommendation is to allow the structure to be expanded into the setback along the existing building line on the ground floor so long as the existing distance to the property line is not reduced and the square footage of the expansion into the setback does not exceed 50% of the square footage of the current intrusion, see Attachment A for the draft ordinance. Page 1 143 144 Q: \CODEAMND\2007Amend7 -9CO W.DOC • • B. Retaining Wall Setbacks There are several different standards for whether retaining walls or rockeries can be located in required setbacks which leads to confusion and in some cases unusable yards. The building code allows most rockeries and retaining walls up to four feet high without a permit, which many people assume is the trigger for meeting setbacks. While the intent may have been to prevent a neighbor from having to look at a tall retaining wall on the property line it sometimes has the effect of creating a yard that is unmaintained and unusable to the property owner because of the grade separation. These rules do not provide for the situations where a retaining wall is perpendicular to a property line across two or more lots or alongside a driveway when the garage is built into the basement of a house on a hillside. Rockeries are rarely allowed to retain more than four feet of earth so their height is less of an issue. The PC recommendation is that retaining walls and rockeries with up to 4 feet of exposed face be allowed in yards to match building code requirements. This could be increased in special circumstances if the property in question is on the lower side of the retaining wall, if the wall benefits the lots on both sides of the property line or if the wall is needed due to R -O -W improvements, see Attachment B for a draft ordinance. The alternate language suggested for item 4 is shown in italics below: 18.50.XXX Retaining Wall Setback Waiver Retaining walls with an exposed height greater than four feet may be allowed in required front, side or rear yard setbacks under the following circumstances: 1. When the applicant's property is on the lower side of the retaining wall and it is not visible from adjacent properties or is screened by landscaping, or 2. When a wall built on a property line or perpendicular to it benefits the lots on both sides and the owners of both properties agree to jointly maintain the wall, or 3. When a wall in a front yard is required due to roadway expansion or improvements, or 4. When a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road that meets Fire Department slope requirements and the exposed face either has a decorative /textured treatment or is screened with landscaping. - OR- 4. When a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road to meet Fire Department slope requirements and the exposed face is; (a) not visible from adjacent properties, or (b) screened by landscaping, or (c) owners of both properties agree to the wall or walls." C. Administrative Variance for Lot Size The minimum lot size in Low Density Residential, Tukwila's single family zone, is 6,500 sf. There are areas of the City that were platted prior to current zoning regulations with different lot patterns such as 3,000 sf lots. These substandard lots are no longer considered individual Page 2 building sites since the passage of Ordinance 2097. This means that a property owner might have to aggregate five or more lots totaling 15,000 sf in order to create two building sites as opposed to the 13,000 sf required by code. Another situation is where an owner wishes to subdivide a lot over 13,000 sf but also wants to retain an existing home that is sited near the middle of the lot so that a new lot cannot be created that meets both setbacks from the existing house and the minimum lot size. There was concern expressed at the CAP meeting about the effect that this might have in allowing for short plats in areas of the City with 12 to 13,000 sf lots. See Attachment C for a map of the approximately 160 lots in the City with area in this range. There may be other factors that would prevent these lots from being subdivided such as location of the existing house, presence of sensitive areas (streams, slopes or wetlands), lack of sanitary sewers or disinterest by the current owner in short platting. The PC recommends creation of an administrative variance to the DCD Director for reductions in lot size of up to 500sf per lot for up to two lots to streamline the process for lots that are just under the threshold for subdivision or where there is an existing house that prevents the lots from being divided equally, see Attachment D for the draft ordinance. Requests for greater reductions through a variance would still require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. D. Permit Processing Housekeeping There are a few decisions called out in the body of the Zoning Code that are not listed in the table at TMC 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications. In addition the proposed changes above, if adopted, would add a new decision to the code. For clarity all of the types of decisions should be listed along with the decision maker and appeal body, see Attachment C for the draft ordinance. REQUESTED ACTION Send the PC endorsed changes to a final public hearing and adoption of the ordinances as written or amended. Attachment A — Attachment B — Attachment C — Attachment D Q:\CODEAMND\2007Amend7-9COW.DOC • • Draft Non - conforming Single Family Expansion Ordinance Draft Retaining Wall Ordinance Map of Lot Sizes between 12,000 and 13,000 sf — Draft Administrative Lot Area Variance Ordinance Page 3 145 146 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1819 AND 2077, AS CODIFIED AT CHAPTER 18.70 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE, TO RESTRICT EXPANSION OF HOUSES INTO NON - CONFORMING SETBACKS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, limiting the expansion of single- family structures that have legally non- conforming building setbacks will reduce the impact upon neighboring properties; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed amendments that address non - conforming residential setbacks, and has recommended the adoption of certain Zoning Code changes; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on these proposed amendments July 16, 2007, after proper notice; and WHEREAS, after having received and studied staff analysis, the City Council believes that certain amendments to the City's development regulations are desirable; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance Nos. 1819 §1 (part) and 2077 §1, as codified at TMC 18.70.050, are hereby amended to read as follows: 18.70.050 Nonconforming Structures Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption of this title that could not be built under the terms of this title by reason of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height, yards or other characteristics of the structure, it may be continued so long as the structure remains otherwise lawful subject to the following provisions: 1. No such structure may be enlarged or altered in such a way that increases its degree of nonconformity. Ordinary maintenance of a nonconforming structure is permitted, pursuant to TMC 18.70.060, including but not limited to painting, roof repair and replacement, plumbing, wiring, mechanical equipment repair /replacement and weatherization. These and other alterations, additions or enlargements may be allowed as long as the work done does not extend further into any required yard or violate any other portion of this title. Complete plans shall be required of all work contemplated under this section. 2. Should such structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50% of its replacement cost at time of destruction, in the judgment of the City's Building Official, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with provisions of this title, except that in the LDR zone, structures that are nonconforming in regard to yard setbacks or sensitive area buffers, but were in conformance at the time of construction may be reconstructed to their original dimensions and location on the lot. C:\Documents and SettingsWl Uses\ DesIdop\Kelly\MSDATA \GrdinanceS Non- conforming Setbacks.doc NG:kon 7/52007 1-cteky, R Page 1 of 3 and • • 3. Should such structure be moved for any reason or any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the zone in which it is located after it is moved. 4. When a nonconforming structure, or structure and premises in combination, is vacated or abandoned for 24 consecutive months, the structure, or structure and premises in combination, shall thereafter be required to be in conformance with the regulations of the zone in which it is located. Upon request of the owner, the City Council may grant an extension of time beyond the 24 consecutive months. 5. Residential structures and uses located in any single - family or multiple - family residential zoning district and in existence at the time of adoption of this title shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of bulk, use, or density provisions of this title. Such buildings may be rebuilt after a fire or other natural disaster to their original dimensions and bulk, but may not be changed except as provided in the non- conforming uses section of this chapter. 6. Single - family structures in single- or multiple - family residential zone districts, which have legally nonconforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand the ground floor only along the existing building line(s), so long as the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the property line is not reduced, and the square footage of new intrusion into the setback does not exceed 50% of the square footage of the current intrusion. 7. In wetlands, watercourses and their buffers, existing structures that do not meet the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Overlay District chapter of this title may be remodeled, reconstructed or replaced, provided that a. The new construction does not further intrude into or adversely impact an undeveloped sensitive area or the required buffer; b. The new construction does not threaten the public health, safety or welfare; c. The structure otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter. 8. In areas of potential geologic instability, coal mine hazard areas, and buffers, as defined in the Sensitive Areas Overlay District chapter of this title, existing structures may be remodeled, reconstructed or replaced, provided that a. The new construction is subject to the geotechnical report requirements and standards of Section 18.45.080E and 080F; b. The new construction does not threaten the public health, safety or welfare; c. The new construction does not increase the potential for soil erosion or result in unacceptable risk or damage to existing or potential development or to neighboring properties; and d. The structure otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter. 9. A nonconforming use, within a nonconforming structure, shall not be allowed to expand into any other portion of the nonconforming structure. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. C:\Documents and Settings\All Users \ Desktop \ Kelly \MSDATA \OrdinancuW on- conforming Setbacks.doe NG:ksn 7/5/2007 Page 2 of 3 147 148 Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2007. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICAI bU: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: C:\Documcnts and SettingsVUI Users\ DeskmP\Kay\MSDATMOrdinances\Non - conforming Sctbacks.doc NG:ksn 7/5/2007 Page 3 of 3 • • DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1758, AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 18.06 AND 18.50, TO ALLOW RETAINING WALLS UP TO FOUR FEET HIGH IN SETBACKS, AND ALLOW RETAINING WALLS OVER FOUR FEET HIGH IN SETBACKS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, several different standards exist for determining whether retaining walls can be located in required setbacks, which leads to confusion and in some cases unusable yards; and WHEREAS, allowing retaining walls and rockeries with up to four feet of exposed face in setbacks would align zoning and building code requirements; and WHEREAS, allowing retaining walls higher than four feet in setbacks may be appropriate in certain circumstances; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed amendments addressing the retaining wall issue and has recommended the adoption of certain Zoning Code changes; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on these proposed amendments July 16, 2007, after proper notice; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after having received and studied staff analysis and comments from members of the public, believes that certain amendments to the City's development regulations are desirable; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.06.800, is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.06.800 Structure "Structure" means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, but excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized. Not included are residential fences up to six feet in height, retaining walls or rockeries with up to four feet of exposed face, and similar improvements of minor character. Section 2. TMC Chapter 18.50, "Supplemental Development Standards," is hereby amended to add the following section: C:\Doc,nnents and SettingsWl Users‘Desktop\ Kelly \MSDATA\Ordinancesactaining Walls.doc GLksn 7/52007 �Tc Iron 1 J Page 1 of 2 149 150 APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney TMC 1850.150 Retaining Wall Setback Waiver Retaining walls with an exposed height greater than four feet may be allowed in required front, side or rear yard setbacks under the following circumstances: 1. When the applicant's property is on the lower side of the retaining wall and it is not visible from adjacent properties or is screened by landscaping; or 2. When a wall built on a property line or perpendicular to it benefits the lots on both sides and the owners of both properties agree to jointly maintain the wall; or 3. When a wall in a front yard is required due to roadway expansion or improvements; or 4. When a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road that meets Fire Department slope requirements, and the exposed face either has a decorative /textured treatment or is screened with landscaping. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2007. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk Steven M. Mullet, Mayor C:1Documenn and SettingsWl Users \ DasktopVCeily1MSDATA 'Ordinances \Retaining Walls.doc GL:ksn 7/5/2007 Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Page 2 of 2 • • LDR Lots 12 to 13,000 s 0.6mi cityGis N Copyright O 2006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. Attachmigt C • • DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUICWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 2119 AND 2135, AND CHAPTERS 18.50 AND 18.104 OF THE TUICWILA MUNICIPAL CODE, TO PROVIDE AN ADMINISTRATIVE LOT AREA VARIANCE IN THE LDR ZONE THAT WOULD BE PROCESSED AS A TYPE 2 DECISION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, creating an administrative variance for lot size for up to 500 square feet could relieve material hardship in specific circumstances; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed amendments to regulate applications for these variances and has recommended the adoption of certain Zoning Code changes; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendments July 16, 2007, after proper notice; and WHEREAS, after having received and studied staff analysis and comments from members of the public, the City Council believes that certain amendments to the City's development regulations are desirable; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUICWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. TMC Chapter 18.50, "Supplemental Development Standards," is hereby amended to add the following section: TMC 18.50.140 Administrative Lot Area Variance in LDR A property owner in the LDR zone may apply for a reduction in lot size of up to 500 square feet per lot for up to two lots. This shall be processed as a Type 2 decision concurrent with the short plat or boundary line adjustment application and approved only if all of the following criteria would be met 1. The current or past property owner has not reduced the area of the lot in question by BLA, short plat or sale of adjacent lots under common ownership, after the effective date of Ordinance No. 2097 (August 6, 2005). 2. The new lots would be able to meet all other development standards including setbacks, maximum building footprint, and parking. 3. Lots that have received a reduction in size through the PRD process are not eligible for further reductions through this variance process. 4. The lot must not contain a multi- family structure or an accessory dwelling unit. 5. The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surrounding of the subject property, in order to provide C:\Documcnts and Settings\All Users \ Deskt op\KcIIyIMSDATA \Ordinances\Admin Lot Variance.doe NG:ksn 7/5/2007 Prribc Page 1 of 5 153 TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Any land use permit or approval issued by the City, unless specifically categorized as a Type 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision by this Chapter As specified by Ordinance Boundary Line Adjustment, including Lot Consolidation (TMC 17.08) Community Development Director Development Permit Building Official Minor modification to BAR- approved design (TMC 18.60.030) Community Development Director Minor Modification to PRD (TMC 18.46.130) Community Development Director Sign Permit, except for those sign permits specifically requiring approval of the Planning Commission, or denials of sign permits that are appealable Community Development Director Tree Permit (TMC 18.54) Community Development Director Wireless Communication Facility, Minor (TMC 18.58) Community Development Director 154 • • it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. 6. The variance permitted is the minimum variance necessary to relieve a hardship which cannot be relieved by any other means. 7. The granting of the variance will not cause a substantial detrimental effect to the public interest. 8. The lot size reduction approved must result in a development that is compatible with and meets the spirit of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, and will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and the rights of the neighboring property owners. Section 2. Ordinance Nos. 2119 §1 and 2135 §19, as codified at TMC 18.104.010, are hereby amended to read as follows: 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications A. Project permit decisions are classified into five types, based on the degree of discretion associated with each decision, as set forth in this section. Procedures for the five different types are distinguished according to who makes the decision, whether public notice is required, whether a public meeting and /or a public hearing is required before a decision is made, and whether administrative appeals are provided. B. TYPE 1 DECISIONS are made by City administrators who have technical expertise as designated by ordinance. Type 1 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner who will hold a closed record appeal hearing based on the information presented to the City administrator who made the decision. Public notice is not required for Type 1 decisions or for the appeals of those decisions. TYPE 1 DECISIONS C. TYPE 2 DECISIONS are decisions which are initially made by the Director or, in certain cases, other City administrators or committees, but which are subject to an open record appeal to the Hearing Examiner, Planning Commission, City Council, or, in the case of shoreline permits, an appeal to the State Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. C:\Documents and Settings WI Users \Desk'top\ li)\MSDATA \Ordinanccs\Admin Lot Variance.doc NO:ksn 715!2007 Page 2 of 5 TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY (open record appeal) Administrative Design Review (TMC 18.60.030) Community Development Director Board of Architectural Review Administrative Lot Area Community Hearing Examiner Variance in LDR Development (TMC 18.50.140) Director Administrative Planned Residential Development (TMC 18.46) Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner Binding Site Improvement Plan (TMC Chapter 17.16) Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner Cargo Container Placement (TMC 18.50.060) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Code Interpretation (TMC 18.90.010) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Commercial Redevelopment Area waiver of certain setback and landscape standards (TMC 18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080) Community Development Director Board of Architectural Review Exception from Single Family Design Standard (TMC 18.50.050) Community Development Director City Council Parking standard for use not specified (TMC 18.56.100) Community Development Director City Council Sensitive Area decision (except Reasonable Use Exception) (TMC 18.45) Community Development Director Planning Commission Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (TMC Chapter 18.44) Community Development Director State Shoreline Hearings Board Short Plat (TMC 17.12) Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner Sign Area Increase (TMC 19.32.140) Community Development Director Planning Commission Sign Permit Denial (TMC Chapter 19.12.020) Community Development Director Planning Commission Special Permission Parking, and Shared, Covenant or Complimentary Parking (TMC 18.56.065 and .070) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Special Permission Landscape Approvals (TMC 18.52.020) Community Development Director Board of Architectural Review Special Permission Sign, except "unique sign" (various sections of TMC Title 19) Community Development Director Planning Commission Structures over public R -O -W (TMC 18.50.130) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Variance from Parking Standards less than 10% (TMC 18.56.140) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Wireless Communication Facility, Minor (TMC 18.58) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner • TYPE 2 DECISIONS • D. TYPE 3 DECISIONS are quasi - judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner following an open record hearing. Type 3 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court, except for shoreline variances that may be appealed to the State Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. C:Doeuments and Settings Wl Users\ Des ktop UCelly4MSDATA \Ordinances\Admin Lot Variance.doc NG:ksn 7/5/2007 Page 3 of 5 155 TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY (closed record appeal) Commercial Redevelopment Area waiver of certain setback and landscape standards (TMC 18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080) Board of Architectural Review Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit (TMC Chapter 18.64) Planning Commission City Council Modification or Waiver to Loading Zone or Bicycle Parking Requirements (TMC 18.56.060 or .130) Planning Commission Hearing Examiner Public Hearing Design Review (TMC Chapter 18.60,18.56.040 and Shoreline Master Program) Board of Architectural Review City Council Reasonable Use Exceptions under Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.180) Planning Commission City Council Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (TMC 18.44.050) Planning Commission State Shoreline Hearings Board Subdivision - Preliminary Plat (TMC 17.14.020) Planning Commission City Council Unique Signs (TMC 19.28.010) Planning Commission City Council Variance from Parking Standards Over 10% (TMC 18.56.140) Planning Commission City Council Wireless Communication Facility, Major or Waiver Request (TMC 18.58) Planning Commission City Council TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Planned Residential Development (PRD), including Major Modifications (TMC Chapter 18.46) City Council Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84) City Council Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC 18.45.160) City Council Shoreline Environment Re- designation (Shoreline Master Program) City Council Subdivision - Final Plat (TMC 17.14.030) City Council Unclassified Use (TMC Chapter 18.66) City Council 156 TYPE 3 DECISIONS TYPE OF PERMIT Resolve uncertain zone district boundary Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk, land alteration, sign) DECISION MAKER Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner E. TYPE 4 DECISIONS are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Board of Architectural Review or the Planning Commission, following an open record hearing. Type 4 decisions may be appealed to the City Council, which will hold a dosed record appeal hearing based on the record established by the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, which are appealable to the State Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. TYPE 4 DECISIONS F. TYPE 5 DECISIONS are quasi - judicial decisions made by the City Council following an open record hearing. Type 5 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court. TYPE 5 DECISIONS C:1Documents and SctiingsWI Users\ Desktop \Kelly\MSDATA\GrdinanccsMAdmin Lot Veriana.doc NG:ksn 7/52007 Page 4 of 5 • • Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalidity or unconstitutional for lidiish� no affect thev�dity or constitutionality of the invalidity or unconstitutionality remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTO 7 at a Regular Meeting thereof this — day of ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Jane Jane —CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk :_ Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date:_ Ordinance Number: C:\Documents and Settings WI Uset sZesk top\Ke11y\MSDATMOrdinanceMdmin Lot Variance.doc NO•J'sn 7/5/2007 • Page 5 of 5 157 June 26 2007 - P- e Commun Affairs & Parks Committeb inutes thresholds and an optional DNS process. After the Planning Commission held a public hearing, they recommended approval of the proposed amendment of increasing the residential y increasing the g construction threshold to nine dwelling units from four dwelling units; 000 square commercial/industrial threshold to 12,000 square on d of non-significance (DNS) feet and 20 parking spaces; and exercising the optional rocess to run concurrent comment periods for the project hand an SAO in plc mm Co when the City originally implemented all im lemented SEPA, we did not yet supports the Planning Commission recommendation. UNANIM OUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. C. Zonin Code Amendments Staff brought forth four proposed Zoning Code amendments. 1. Limitation on single family expansions with non - conforming setbacks 2. Retaining wall setback changes 3. Administrative variance for single family lot size 4. Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010 These amendments were originally introduced at the Aprl 10, 2 discussion and Affairs and td Parks Committee meeting. They were then forwarded to COW for the Planning Commission for a public hearing and subsequent recommendation. After a lengthy discussion, the Committee agreed to forward 1 Am n n �commendatioos f r O W for discussion, and they are in support of the Planning Co amendments. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL FOR AMENDMENTS 1 and 4. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. In regards to Amendment 2, Retaining Wall Setback C nangrn ithat nnis four will nullify the wording of number four of the setback waiver. His co pa a rameters set forth in numbers one through three if del applicant can like to draft a propose wording change retaining wall to fire access requirements. Dennis would number four that staff can submit for consideration to o t CO hefPlanning o mss mission recommendation when the amendment moves forward FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. gle The Committee is not in consensus with Amendment 3, that the changes proposed by in the Family Lot Size. Both Pam Linder and Pam Carter feel of life for amendment do not create provisions that would subs 0 tii l ucre ff the quality allow for Tukwila's single family home residents; owne�awho are m y under the threshold for flexibility assisting interested property Y owners who bought in a subdivision. In contrast, Dennis shared his concern for property pa rticular location as a result of spatial housing and lot s izes for lod es nots'o support this amendment because he feels implementation of such vari th potential to disturb the well -being of neighborhoods with the consideration for the the lot aj os to of homeowners purchased their home because of the lot size layout and P r maintained as such. COMMITTEE IS NOT IN CONSENSUS. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. 158 a . ..... ; ACTION TOBE TAKEN : < 1. PRESENTATIONS) 2. BUSINESS AGENDA Code amendment issues; Nora Gierlof,, DCD Planning Supervisor: a. Sensitive Areas ordinance b. Code amendment -- SEPA a. Forward to 7/9 COW. b. Forward to 7/9 COW. Pg. 1 Pg.31 c. Zoning Code amendments c. Forward to 7/9 COW. Pg.37 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS 4.. MISCELLANEOUS • City of Tukwila Community Affairs and Parks Committee • Pam Linder, Chair • Pam Carter • 'Dennis Robertson AGENDA Monday, June 26, 2007 Conference Room #3; 5 PM Distribution: ' P. Carter V. Griffin P. Under D. Robertson Mayor Mullet R. Berry E. Boykan J. Cantu B. Fletcher K. Fuhrer V. Jessop S. Kerslake G. Labanara K. Matej M. Miotke C. O'Flaherty J. Pace D. Speck R. Still CC File (cover) CN _Gierlofff Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, July .10, 2007 S . The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate those with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 -433 -1800 for assistance. Type of Action Tukwila's Threshold Maximum Threshold PC Proposed ' Thresholds Residential Construction 4 dwelling units 20 dwelling units 9 dwelling units Commercial /Industrial Construction 4,000 sf and 20 parking spaces 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces Parking Lots 40 parking spaces 40 parking spaces No Change Landfills or Excavations 500 cubic yards 500 cubic yards No Change To: Mayor Mullet Community Affairs and Parks C, imittee FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Director DATE: June 15, 2007 SUBJECT: Code Amendment — SEPA BACKGROUND • • INFORMATION MEMORANDUM The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that a standard checklist be filled out by a project proponent to identify the environmental impacts of certain actions. Actions include grading, dredging, paving, construction or demolition of buildings, and adoption or revision of most plans, policies or regulations by a government agency. The intent is to identify environmental impacts that would otherwise "fall through the cracks" and provide a mechanism for public review and mitigation. Jurisdictions have flexibility in setting the thresholds that trigger SEPA review up to the maximum level allowed by the State. If a project is exempt in one category but triggers SEPA in another then SEPA is required. For example a three lot short plat on a hillside would be exempt from SEPA review unless the cut and fill required exceeded 500 cubic yards. Jurisdictions can also take advantage of an optional SEPA process that allows them to identify projects where significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely and combine the comment period on that determination with the notice of application comment period for the underlying permit, see Attachment A. NG Paee 1 06/19/2007 9:43:00 AM �1 NG Page 2 06/19/2007 9:43:00 AM The CAP reviewed this proposal on April 10, 2007 and recommended approval of all changes except there was no consensus on raising the threshold for single family construction. At the COW meeting on May 14 the Council opted to send the proposal to the Planning Commission and ask for their input on the single family threshold. The PC held a hearing on May 24 and supported raising the threshold to 9 dwelling units for single family construction as well as the changes to the commercial threshold and the optional DNS process. ANALYSIS Tukwila and other agencies with permitting authority have a comprehensive set of regulations to control negative impacts in the following areas that are subject to SEPA review: • • 1. Grading, filling, unstable soil and erosion (Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance, International Building Code, PW Standards) 2. Air emissions (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency) 3. Surface water (wetlands and watercourses), groundwater, and storm water (Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance, King County Surface Water Design Manual) 4. Vegetation and landscaping (Landscape Chapter of the Zoning Code, Tree Ordinance) 5. Animals, endangered species, wildlife habitat (ESA, Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance) 6. Energy and natural resources (Building and Mechanical Codes) 7. Environmental health, hazardous waste and noise (Tukwila Noise Ordinance, Hazardous Waste Regulations, Department of Ecology) 8. Land and shoreline use (Zoning Code, Shoreline Master Program) 9. Housing (IBC, Zoning Code, Design Review) 10. Aesthetics, design review (Design Review) 11. Light and glare (IMC, Zoning Code, Design Review) 12. Recreation (Parks Department, Zoning Code recreation space requirements) 13. Historic and cultural preservation (No listed structures in Tukwila, Archaeological and Paleontological preservation requirements) 14. Transportation, traffic and parking (Level of Service Standards, PW Concurrency Requirements, Transportation Impact Fees, Capital Improvement Program, Zoning Code Parking requirements) 15. Public services (Concurrency Requirements) 16. Utilities, sewer and water concurrency (Concurrency Requirements) 1-“i.,r11-• w....tntcrnwn..._._s..\L CODA flC ' Because these codes and standards are already in place we do not often have to rely on SEPA to impose mitigation conditions. Raising the threshold for number of new dwelling units to 9 would match the threshold for subdivision review. Raising the threshold for new buildings in commercial /industrial zones to 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces would streamline review of smaller projects. As an example the Claim Jumper restaurant is approximately 12,000 sf. Because SEPA triggers notice requirements some smaller projects that do not require other approvals such as design review would no longer require public notice if the threshold were changed. Short plats for 5 or more lots are required to provide public notice and raising the SEPA threshold would not change that. PROPOSAL 18.104.090 Notice of Application - Procedure Notice of Application shall be provided as follows: 1. For all Type 2, 3, 4 and 5 decisions, and Type 1 decisions which require SEPA review, the Notice of Application shall be mailed by first class mail to the applicant and to departments and agencies with jurisdiction, except that a Notice of Application is not required in the case of a Code Interpretation pursuant to TMC 18.96.010 or a Sign Permit Denial pursuant to TMC Chapter 19.12. 2. For Type 1 decisions and Type 2 decisions which require SEPA review, the Notice of Application shall be provided by posting pursuant to TMC 18.104.110, provided that the Notice of Application for a Type 1 decision involving a single - family residence need not be posted but shall be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 3. For short plats of 5 through 9 lots and Type 3, 4 and 5 applications, the Notice of Application shall be posted pursuant to TMC 18.104.110 and mailed pursuant to TMC 18.104.120. Notice requirements for secure community transition facilities shall be in accordance with RCW 71.09.315 as amended. Very few development proposals require a full environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze impacts and develop mitigation measures. For the vast majority of development in Tukwila the City issues either a determination of non - significance (DNS) or a mitigated determination of non - significance (MDNS) after review of the SEPA checklist. The City is authorized under WAC 197 -11 -355 to make this determination early in the review process and combine the SEPA comment period with that of the underlying permit, saving about two weeks of processing time. Raise the flexible thresholds for commercial and industrial new construction and possibly for residential, as shown on the table above. Take advantage of the optional DNS process that allows for concurrent SEPA and project comment periods, see Attachment A. 21.04.110 Categorical exemptions- Flexible thresholds A. The City establishes the following exempt levels for minor new construction based on local conditions: 6 1 1. For residential dwelling units in WAC 197 -11 -800 (1)(b)(i) up to-fenrdwelling units. Mr! Pao. 1 06/19/2007 9:43:00 AM 33 3q • • 2. For agricultural structures in WAC 197 -11 -800 (1) (b)(ii) up to 10,000 square feet. 3. For office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings in WAC 197 -11- I 800(1) (b)(iii), up to 4 12,000 square feet, and up to 2 40 parking spaces. 4. For parking lots in WAC 197 -11- 800(1)(b)(iv), up to 40 parking spaces. 5. For landfills and excavations in WAC 197- 11 -800 (1)(b)(v), up to 500 cubic yards. B. The responsible official shall send copies of all adopted flexible thresholds to the Department of Ecology, headquarters office, Olympia, Washington. 21.04.080 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations - Adoption by reference The City adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference as supplemented in this chapter: 197 -11 -300 Purpose of this part 197 -11 -305 Categorical exemptions 197 -11 -310 Threshold determination required 197 -11 -315 Environmental checklist 197 -11 -330 Threshold determination process 197 -11 -335 Additional information 197 -11 -340 Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) 197 -11 -350 Mitigated DNS 197 -11 -355 Optional DNS process 197 -11 -360 Determination of Significance (DS) /initiation of scoping 197 -11 -390 Effect of threshold determination REQUESTED ACTION Send the PC recommended changes to the City Council for discussion, a final hearing and adoption of an ordinance. Attachment A — WAC 197 -11 -355 Optional DNS Process Attachment B — PC 5/24/07 Minutes NG Page 4 06/19/2007 9:43:00 AM .. .......... nr•r. nc!'. An ern A nnr• WAC 197 -11 -355: Optional DDprocess. 197 -11 -350 « 197 -11 -355 » 197 -11 -360 • Page 1 of 1 WAC 197 -11 -355 Optional DNS process. (1) If a GMA county /city with an integrated project review process (RCW 36.70B.060) is lead agency for a proposal and has a reasonable basis for determining significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely, it may use a single integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and the likely threshold determination for the proposal. If this process is used, a second comment period will typically not be required when the DNS is issued (refer to subsection (4) of this section). (2) If the lead agency uses the optional process specified in subsection (1) of this section, the lead agency shall: (a) State on the first page of the notice of application that it expects to issue a DNS for the proposal, and that: (i) The optional DNS process is being used; (ii) This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal; (iii) The proposal may include mitigation measures under applicable codes, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether an EIS is prepared; and (iv) A copy of the subsequent threshold determination for the specific proposal may be obtained upon request (in addition, the lead agency may choose to maintain a general mailing list for threshold determination distribution). (b) List in the notice of application the conditions being considered to mitigate environmental impacts, if a mitigated DNS is expected; (c) Comply with the requirements for a notice of application and public notice in RCW 36.708.110; and (d) Send the notice of application and environmental checklist to: (i) Agencies with jurisdiction, the department of ecology, affected tribes, and each local agency or political subdivision whose public services would be changed as a result of implementation of the proposal; and (ii) Anyone requesting a copy of the environmental checklist for the specific proposal (in addition, the lead agency may choose to maintain a general mailing list for checklist distribution). (3) If the lead agency indicates on the notice of application that a DNS is likely, an agency with jurisdiction may assume lead agency status during the comment period on the notice of application (WAC 197 -11 -948). (4) The responsible official shall consider timely comments on the notice of application and either: (a) Issue a DNS or mitigated DNS with no comment period using the procedures in subsection (5) of this section; (b) Issue a DNS or mitigated DNS with a comment period using the procedures in subsection (5) of this section, if the lead agency determines a comment period is necessary; (c) Issue a DS; or (d) Require additional information or studies prior to making a threshold determination. (5) If a DNS or mitigated DNS is issued under subsection (4)(a) of this section, the lead agency shall send a copy of the DNS or mitigated DNS to the department of ecology, agencies with jurisdiction, those who commented, and anyone requesting a copy. A copy of the environmental checklist need not be recirculated. (Statutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESHB 1724) and RCW 43.21C.110.97 -21 -030 (Order 95 -18), § 197 -11 -355, filed 10/10/97, effective 11/10/971 3 5 3/2 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2007 Page 4 of 4 • • COMMISSIONER EKBERG MADE A MOTION TO FORWARD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AS PROPOSED ON CASE NUMBER L07 -024 ON THE SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER BRATCHER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR CASE NUMBER: L07 -024 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council about the proposed amendments to the SEPA Code. LOCATION: City wide Nora Gierloff provided background on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). She stated that SEPA is intended to be a double check to catch things that would otherwise fall through the cracks. Currently there are two areas where we are below the threshold: 1) Residential construction, 2) Commercial and Industrial construction. Staff is proposing to raise the flexible thresholds for these two areas. There is also an optional process that would allow us to streamline notice periods. The Planning Commission were all in consensus of Staff's recommendation on the SEPA amendments on case number L07 -024. This item will be forwarded to the City Council. COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO FORWARD THE THREE CODE AMENDMENTS ON CASE NUMBER L07 -024 TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER BRATCHER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR DIRECTOR REPORT: • There will be a worksession with dinner provided either in June or July to discuss Urban Design issues. Meeting adjourned at 8:33 PM Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens Secretary TO: Mayor Mullet Community Affairs and Parks C m ittee FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Director DATE: June 15, 2007 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendments BACKGROUND Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for consideration: 1) Limitation on single family expansions within non - conforming setbacks; 2) Retaining wall setback changes; 3) Administrative variance for single family lot size; and 4) Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010. Staff presented these issues with various options to the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP) Committee on April 10, 2007. They were then discussed at the COW meeting on May 14 The Committee discussed each item and chose to forward them to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation. The PC made only minor changes and their recommendations are reflected in the strikeout/underline language listed below. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Staff's proposal is as follows: • • INFORMATION MEMORANDUM A. Limitation on Additions to Homes that Do Not meet Setbacks TMC 18.70.050 (6) states "single family structures in single or multiple family zone districts, which have legally non - conforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand along the existing building line(s) if the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the property line is not reduced." This provision has been used in ways that significantly increase the area of non - conformity and impact upon the neighboring property. 18.70.050 Nonconforming Structures Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption of this title that could not be built under the terms of this title by reason of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height, yards or other characteristics of the structure, it may be continued so long as the structure remains otherwise lawful subject to the following provisions: 0 • 6. Single - family structures in single- or multiple - family residential zone districts, which have legally nonconforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand the ground floor only along the existing building line(s) so long as if-the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the property line is not reduced and the square footage of new intrusion into the setback does not exceed 50% of the square footage of the current intrusion. B. Retaining Wall Setbacks There are several different standards for whether retaining walls can be located in required setbacks which leads to confusion and in some cases unusable yards. The Zoning Code defines yard and structure as: 18.06.945 Yard "Yard" means a required open space unoccupied and unobstructed by any structure or portion of a structure from 30 inches above the general ground level of the graded lot upward. 18.06.800 Structure "Structure" means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, but excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized. Not included are residential fences, retaining walls less than three feet in height, rockeries and similar improvements of minor character. The building code allows most rockeries and retaining walls up to four feet high without a permit, which many people assume is the trigger for meeting setbacks. Rockeries are rarely allowed to retain more than four feet of earth. While the intent may have been to prevent a neighbor from having to look at a tall retaining wall on the property line it sometimes has the effect of creating a yard that is unmaintained and unusable to the property owner because of the grade separation. These rules do not provide for the situations where a retaining wall is perpendicular to a property line across two or more lots or alongside a driveway when the garage is built into the basement of a house on a hillside. Staff suggests that retaining walls and rockeries with up to 4 feet of exposed face be allowed in yards to match building code requirements. This could be increased in special circumstances if the property in question is on the lower side of the retaining wall, if the wall benefits the lots on both sides of the property line or if the wall is needed due to R -O -W improvements. 18.06.800 Structure "Structure" means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, but excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized. Not included are residential fences up to six feet in height, retaining walls less than th r t in h rockeries with up to four feet of exposed face and similar improvements of minor character. TMC XX Retaining Wall Setback Waiver Retaining walls with an exposed height greater than four feet may be allowed in required front, side or rear yard setbacks under the following circumstances: r%ArnnrA11An mMUI /A ...Prr14_14CAP r)ClC Page 2 • • 1. When the applicant's property is on the lower side of the retaining wall and it is not visible from adjacent properties or is screened by landscaping, or 2. When a wall built on a property line or perpendicular to it benefits the lots on both sides and the owners of both properties agree to jointly maintain the wall, or 3. When a wall in a front yard is required due to roadway expansion or improvements, or 4. When a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road that meets Fire Department slope requirements and the exposed face either has a decorative /textured treatment or is screened with landscaping. C. Administrative Variance for Lot Size The minimum lot size in Low Density Residential, Tukwila's single family zone, is 6,500 sf. There are areas of the City that were platted prior to current zoning regulations with different lot patterns such as 3,000 sf lots. These substandard lots are no longer considered individual building sites since the passage of Ordinance 2097. This means that a property owner might have to aggregate five or more lots totaling 15,000 sf in order to create two building sites as opposed to the 13,000 sf required by code. Staff proposes to create an administrative variance to the DCD Director for reductions in lot size of up to 500sf per lot for up to two lots to streamline the process for lots that are just under the threshold for subdivision or where there is an existing house that prevents the lots from being divided equally. Requests for greater reductions through a variance would still require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Proposed criteria for this new type of variance include: TMC 18.50.140 Administrative Lot Area Variance in LDR A property owner in the LDR zone may apply for a reduction in lot size of up to 500 square feet per lot for up to two lots. This shall be processed as a Type 2 decision concurrent with the short plat or boundary line adjustment application and approved only if all of the following criteria would be met. 1) The current or past property owner has not reduced the area of the lot in question by BLA, short plat or sale of adjacent lots under common ownership after the effective date of Ord. 2097 (August 6, 2005). 2) The new lots would be able to meet all other development standards including setbacks, lot width, maximum building footprint and parking. 3) Lots that have received a reduction in size through the PRD process are not eligible for further reductions through this variance process. 4) The variance is compatible with and meets the spirit of the comprehensive plan and will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and the rights of the neighboring property owners. 5) The lot must not contain a multi - family structure or an accessory dwelling unit. 6) The variance permitted is the minimum variance necessary to relieve a material hardship which cannot be relieved by any other means. 7) The granting of the variance will not cause a substantial detrimental effect to the public interest. 35' TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY (open record appeal) 18.52.020 Special Permission landscape approvals Community Development Director Board of Architectural Review 18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080 Waiver of certain setback and landscape standards in the Commercial Redevelopment Area Community Development Director Board of Architectural Review 18.50.130 Structures over public R -O -W Community Development Director Hearing Examiner 18.56.140 Variance from Parking Standards less than 10% Community Development Director Hearing Examiner 18.50.140 Administrative Lot Area Variance in LDR Community Development Director Hearing Examiner TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY (closed record appeal) 18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080 Waiver of certain setback and landscape standards in the Commercial Redevelopment Area Board of Architectural Review Hearing Examiner D. Permit Processing Housekeeping There are a few decisions called out in the body of the Zoning Code that are not listed in the table at TMC 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications. In addition the proposed changes above, if adopted, would add a new decision to the code. For clarity all of the types of decisions should be listed along with the decision maker and appeal body. Add to the Type 2 Decisions section: Add to the Type 4 Decisions section: REQUESTED ACTION n.l.rnnc a n,n wmlnm A ..,nnA4_,. r A P nnr• • • Send the PC recommended changes to the full Council for discussion, a final hearing and adoption of the ordinance amending the Zoning Code. Attachment A — PC Minutes from 5/24/07 Hearing Paae 4 • • Present: Chair George Malina, Vice Chair Chuck Parrish, Commissioners, Allan Ekberg, Margaret Bratcher, Bill Arthur and Lynn Peterson The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Malina at 7:00 PM Absent: Henry Marvin PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES MAY 24, 2007 Representing City Staff: Nora Gierloff, Jack Pace and Wynetta Bivens COMMISSIONER PARRISH MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FROM APRIL 26, 2007. COMMISSIONER BRATCHER SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L07 -024 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Hold a Public Hearing and make recommendations to the City Council about four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code concerning: • 1. Limitation on single family expansions within non - conforming setbacks; 2. Retaining wall setback changes; 3. Administrative variance for single family lot size; and 4. Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010. LOCATION: City wide Nora Gierloff gave the presentation for staff on each of the four requests: 1. Limitation on single family expansions within non - conforming setbacks %pp The current Zoning Code has an exception, which states - if you have a single family house in a residential zone that was built in a setback, you can expand a house along the existing wall. There have been some cases where people have taken this to the extreme and had a much greater impact on their neighbors. Staff is proposing: • You can expand only on the ground floor and that you can't have a second floor that is also in that non - conforming set -back area. • The area of the new expansion should not be more than 50% of the intrusion. Ms. Gierloff addressed several questions. The Planning Commission recommended: • Change the word `area' to `square footage' under letter A, number 6 of the Staff Report. rJ) Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2007 Page 2 of 4 • 2. Retaining wall setback changes Definition of a yard - You are not allowed to have a structure more than 30 inches high in a required front yard or side yard. Definition of a structure — Retaining walls less than three feet in height and rockeries are not considered structures. A lot of people assume since you don't need a building permit until you hit four feet that it's not a structure that requires a setback. Staff is Proposing: • Change the definition of structure to — `Retaining walls or rockeries up to four feet high would not be considered structures and would be allowed to be in front and side yards.' • Residential fences up to six feet in height do not require a building permit. • Allow exceptions for retaining walls in a setback for structures greater than four feet and provide outline of justified cases. • Wall needed to create vehicular access road for Fire Department requirements should either have a decorative treatment or are screened with landscaping. Ms. Gierloff addressed several questions. Commissioners Malina and Arthur were opposed to Staff's proposal for the wall decorative treatment requirement or screeningwith landscaping. Planning Commission Recommendation: • Under TMC ?? Retaining Wall Setback Waiver — `Retaining walls with an exposed height greater than four feet may be allowed in required front, side or rear yards under the following circumstances' change, insert the word `setbacks' after yards, letter B, paragraph under TMC ?? of the staff report. • Change — `decorative treatment' to `decorative/textured treatment' or screen with landscaping, letter B, number 4 under TMC ?? in the Staff Report. 3. Administrative variance for single family lot size In the Single Family zone the minimum lot size is 6, 500 sq. ft.. In order to create two lots you need a minimum of 13,000 sq. ft. For various reasons people do not meet the criteria to short plat or create two equal size lots. Staff is Proposing: • Allow up to a 500 sq. ft. reduction in lot size, for up to two lots if required criteria are met. Chair Malina swore in a citizen who wished to give public testimony. Jonathan Brown, a citizen, spoke in support of the Administrative Variance. He shared his personal experience with his house and lot size, calling the reduction a handsome decision, which would fit a lot of peoples circumstances. Commissioner Ekberg requested a definition of material hardship, letter C, number 7, for future reference. Commissioner Arthur wanted to add that the Administrative Variance still allows the City to compile with the Comprehensive Plan when it comes to describing what is desired in a residential structure. Planning Commission recommendation: Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2007 Page 3 of 4 • 4. Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010. Ms. Gierloff indicated this was a house keeping item. If the Administrative Variance for lot size is approved it should be added to this table. The Planning Commission deliberated. COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO FORWARD THE FOUR ZONING CODE RECOMMENDATIONS ON CASE NUMBER L07 -024 AS MODIFIED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER EKBERG SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR CASE NUMBER: L07 -024 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council about an amendment to the Sensitive Area Ordinance allowing the DCD Director to establish the number of wetland mitigation bank credits needed for specific off -site mitigation proposals. LOCATION: City wide Nora Gierloff provided background on sensitive areas. She gave an explanation on the purchase of mitigation bank credits, stating the mitigation process is outlined in the attached Code. Credits in a mitigation bank are based on net ecological benefit provided and are determined on the basis of Department of Ecology mitigation ratios, the kinds of mitigation carried out at the bank and the total acreage for each type of mitigation. The missing piece is wetland credits versus the amount of ecological function that is impacted by filling the wetland. Staff proposes creating a process after the Director has approved the filling of the wetland and approved off -site mitigation to allow him to set the number of credits that are required for the impact at that particular bank. The proposed language is listed in attachment C in the Proposed Amendment to Sensitive Area Ordinance in the May 24, 2007 Staff Report. This would give the Director some criteria to use when making his determination. Ms. Gierloff listed the criteria. There was extensive questions and discussion on this item. Some of the key issues that were raised: 1) Is there a formula used to determined what is worth X number of credits? 2) If there is an appeal process where does it go (type 2 decisions go to the hearing examiner)? 3) Is WSDOT the ones who are monitoring the amount of credits that go into the bank (WSDOT is a purchaser; they are a developer who wants to buy credits from this bank)? Staff explained that we have one method of mitigation and WSDOT has the credits. 4) Staff would like to have a more formal process for selecting the number of credits. 5) This process has already been built and approved, meets the Department of Ecology, as well as, other agency requirements. 6) The City does not have a bank of it's own because staff has not been able to identify spaces that are big enough to be viable. Commissioner Parrish indicated he has no problem with Staff's proposal. He suggested that there are paper records, which would make the Director's position defendable in the event of a challenge. The Planning Commission deliberated. `�3 I • COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes June 26, 2007- 5:00 p.m. PRESENT Councilmembers: Pam Linder, Chair; Pam Carter and Dennis Robertson Staff: Jack Pace, Nora Gierloff and Kimberly Matej Guest: Chuck Parrish I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. City of Tukwila Community Affairs & Parks Committee CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Linder called the meeting to order at 4:57 p.m. II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Sensitive Areas Ordinance The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) amendment is returning to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee since it was first heard on April 24, 2007. On April 24 the Committee suggested some minor language changes, and chose to forward it to the COW for discussion. The COW, in turn, chose to forward the amendment to the Planning Commission for review. After the Planning Commission held a public hearing, they recommended approval of the SAO amendment as written. With the exception of minor language changes, this is the same amendment that the Committee reviewed previously. In summary, the amendment addresses off-site mitigation and the amount of mitigation built into the value of a credit in a mitigation bank. The current ordinance, as written, does not address the issue of mitigation banks and is not straightforward on mitigation ratios. The proposed changes will allow the DCD Director to establish a ratio for mitigation acreage in comparison to wetland bank credits for off -site mitigation. The process will allow a certain number of mitigation bank credits to be required for impact at a specific mitigation bank in comparison to the impact made by development of the sensitive area in question. The Committee expressed their concern with mitigations occurring outside of the City when there are some sensitive areas within the City that will require funding in the upcoming years. Staff is aware of these concerns and understands the priority of on and off-site mitigation. Staff reminded the Committee that river areas cannot be utilized for wetland mitigation. The Committee is in favor of forwarding the SAO amendment to the COW for discussion. Additionally, the Committee feels that it would be in the best interest of the full Council for DCD to include a brief summary of the status of Type 2, 3 and 4 projects resulting in administrative decisions in their quarterly report. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. B. Code Amendment - SEPA The amendment in question for SEPA was previously heard by the Committee on April 10, 2007. At that time, the Committee was not in consensus of the portion of the proposal which would raise the residential construction from Tukwila's current threshold of four dwelling units to nine dwelling units. The proposal was sent to the COW for discussion. The COW chose to forward the amendment to the Planning Commission for review on the residential as well as commercial Community Affairs & Parks Commlffee Minutes • June 26, 2007 — Page 2 thresholds and an optional DNS process. After the Planning Commission held a public hearing, they recommended approval of the proposed amendment of increasing the residential construction threshold to nine dwelling units from four dwelling units; increasing the commercial /industrial threshold to 12,000 square feet and 40 parking spaces from 4,000 square feet and 20 parking spaces; and exercising the optional determination of non - significance (DNS) process to run concurrent comment periods for the project and SEPA. Staff commented that when the City originally implemented SEPA, we did not yet have an SAO in place. The Committee supports the Planning Commission recommendation. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. C. Zoning Code Amendments Staff brought forth four proposed Zoning Code amendments. 1. Limitation on single family expansions with non - conforming setbacks 2. Retaining wall setback changes 3. Administrative variance for single family lot size 4. Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010 These amendments were originally introduced at the April 10, 2007, Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting. They were then forwarded to COW for discussion, and from there to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and subsequent recommendation. After a lengthy discussion, the Committee agreed to forward Amendments 1 and 4 to the COW for discussion, and they are in support of the Planning Commission's recommendations for those amendments. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL FOR AMENDMENTS 1 and 4. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. In regards to Amendment 2, Retaining Wall Setback Changes, Dennis expressed concern with the wording of number four of the setback waiver. His concern is that number four will nullify the parameters set forth in numbers one through three if the applicant can attribute their need for a retaining wall to fire access requirements. Dennis would like to draft a proposed wording change for number four that staff can submit for consideration along with the Planning Commission recommendation when the amendment moves forward to the COW for further discussion. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. The Committee is not in consensus with Amendment 3, Administrative Variance for Single Family Lot Size. Both Pam Linder and Pam Carter feel that the changes proposed by the amendment do not create provisions that would substantially affect the quality of life for Tukwila's single family home residents; and that the 500 square foot variance will allow for flexibility assisting interested property owners who are minimally under the threshold for subdivision. In contrast, Dennis shared his concern for property owners who bought in a particular location as a result of spatial housing and lot sizes. He does not support this amendment because he feels implementation of such variances for lot subdivisions has the potential to disturb the well -being of neighborhoods with the consideration that the majority of homeowners purchased their home because of the lot size layout and prefer for the lot sizes to be maintained as such. COMMITTEE IS NOT IN CONSENSUS. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. Community Affairs & Parks Comfit Minutes III. ANNOUNCEMENTS — No announcements. IV. MISCELLANEOUS — Jack informed the Committee that he would like to schedule a van tour this Fall so that Committee members can get a strong sense of what is happening in the Tukwila community from a residential standard standpoint. During the tour, staff can suggest strategies on dealing with competing issues and how to move ahead appropriately. Explanation of these opportunities will assist the Council in making policy decisions. Dennis added that at the time of the tour, he would like to discuss sidewalk and undergrounding issues as well as future requirements for such. Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Next meeting: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 — 5:00 p.m. — Conference Room 3 Committee Chair Approval Minutes by KAM. • June 26, 2007 — Page 3 • • Proposed Zoning and Subdivision Code Changes 17.12.010 Scope Any land being divided into nine or fewer parcels, lots, unit lots, tracts or sites for the purpose of sale, lease, or gift, any one of which is less than 20 acres in size, shall meet the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 1833 § 1(part), 1998) 17.12.070 Unit lot short plats A. Sites developed or proposed to be developed with townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, or zero -lot line duplexes may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. Any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. B. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. C. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common play areas), and other similar features, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. D. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. E. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. Construction of townhouse dwellings may commence prior to final short plat approval, provided: 1. The proposed short plat has received preliminary approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed to assure construction of required public improvements; 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor impair City enforcement of conditions of subdivision approval; 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued until final short plat approval is granted. 17.14.010 Scope Any land being divided into 10 or more parcels, lots, unit lots, tracts or sites, for the purpose of sale or gift, any one of which is less than 20 acres in size, or any land which has been divided under the short subdivision procedures within five years and is not eligible for further short platting pursuant to Section 17.12.010 shall conform to the procedures and requirements of this chapter. Attachment H (Ord. 1833 ,t l (part), 1998) 17.14.060 Unit lot subdivisions A. Sites developed or proposed to be developed with townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, or zero -lot line duplexes may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. Any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. B. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. C. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common play areas), and other similar features, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. D. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. E. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. Construction of townhouse dwellings may commence prior to final plat approval, provided: 1. The proposed plat has received preliminary approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed to assure construction of required public improvements; 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor impair City enforcement of conditions of subdivision approval; 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued until final plat approval is granted. 18.06337 Lot, Parent "Lot, parent" means the initial lot from which unit lots are subdivided for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, zero -lot line duplexes, or any combination of the above types of residential development. 18.06.542 Lot, Unit "Lot, unit" means one (1) of the individual lots created from the subdivision of a parent lot for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, compact single family, zero -lot line duplexes, or any combination of the above types of residential development. 18.06.768 Short Subdivision "Short subdivision" means the division of land into nine or less lots, unit lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions. Lot area, minimum 8,000 sq. townhouse ft. (Applied to parent lot for plats) Lot area per unit (multi - family) 3,000 sq. ft. Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet plats) (Applied to parent lot for townhouse Setbacks, minimum: Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front - 1st floor 15 feet • Front - 2nd floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Second front - 1st floor 7.5 feet • Second front - 2nd floor 10 feet • Second front - 3rd floor 15 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Sides - 1st floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd floor 20 feet • Sides - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 1st floor 10 feet • Rear - 2nd floor 20 feet • Rear - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) Townhouse building separation, minimum • 1 and 2 story buildings 10 feet • 3 and 4 story buildings 20 feet • • 18.06.813 Subdivision "Subdivision" means the division or redivision of land into ten or more lots, unit lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions. 18.06.8XX Townhouse "Townhouse" means a form of ground- related housing in which individual dwelling units are attached along at least one (1) common wall to at least one (1) other dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit occupies space from the ground to the roof and has direct access to private open space. No portion of a unit may occupy space above or below another unit, except that townhouse units may be constructed over a common shared parking garage, provided the garage is underground. 18.12.060 Design Review Design review is required for all new multi - family structures; 1,500 square feet or larger additions to existing multi - family structures; mobile or manufactured home parks; and for developments in a Commercial Redevelopment Area that propose the uses and standards of an adjacent commercial zone. Multi - family structures containing up to nine dwelling units and additions over 1,500 square feet will be reviewed administratively. (See TMC Chap. 18.60, Board of Architectural Review.) (Ord. 2005 §1 2002; Ord. 1865 §11, 1999: Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.1 Basic Development Standards Development within the Medium Density Residential District shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: MDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Height, maximum 30 feet Landscape requirements (minimum): See Landscape, Recreation, Recycling /Solid Waste Space requirements chapter for further requirements Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats 2,000 sq. ft. • Front(s) 15 feet • Sides 10 feet • Rear 10 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum (75% for townhouses) Recreation space 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. min.) Off - street parking: • Front — 4th floor • Residential See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations. • Accessory dwelling unit See Accessory Use section of this chapter • Other uses See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations Lot area, minimum 9,600 sq. ft. (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Lot area per unit (multi - family, except senior citizen housing) 2,000 sq. ft. Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Setbacks, minimum: Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front - 1st floor 15 feet • Front - 2nd floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Front — 4th floor 45 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Second front - 1st floor 7.5 feet • Second front - 2nd floor 10 feet • Second front - 3rd floor 15 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Second front — 4th floor 22.5 feet (10 feet for townhouses) (Ord. 1976 §23, 201)1; ()rd. 1758 ,i" l (part), 1995) 18.14.060 Design Review Design review is required for all new multi - family structures; 1,500 square feet or larger additions to existing multi - family structures; mobile or manufactured home parks; and for developments in a Commercial Redevelopment Area that propose the uses and standards of an adjacent commercial zone. Multi- family structures containing up to nine dwelling units and additions over 1,500 square feet will be reviewed administratively. (See TMC Chap. 18.60, Board of Architectural Review.) (Ord. 2005, §2. 2002: Ord. 1865 §15, 1999; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.14.070 Basic Development Standards Development within the High Density Residential District shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: HDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS • Sides - 1st floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd floor 20 feet • Sides - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) • Sides — 4th floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 1st floor 10 feet • Rear - 2nd floor 20 feet • Rear - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) • Rear — 4th floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) Townhouse building separation, minimum • I and 2 story buildings 10 feet • 3 and 4 story buildings 20 feet Height, maximum 45 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum (except senior citizen housing, 75% for townhouses) Landscape requirements (minimum): See Landscape, Recreation, Recycling /Solid Waste Space requirements chapter for further requirements Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front(s) 15 feet • Sides 10 feet • Rear 10 feet Recreation space 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. min.) Recreation space, senior citizen housing 100 sq. ft. per dwelling unit Off - street parking: • Residential (except senior citizen housing) See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations. • Accessory dwelling unit See Accessory Use section of this chapter • Other uses, including senior citizen housing See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations 18.50.070 Yard Regulations A. Fences, walls, poles, posts, and other customary yard accessories, ornaments, furniture may be permitted in any yard subject to height limitations and requirements limiting obstruction of visibility to the detriment of public safety. The height of opaque fences along street frontages is limited to 4 feet, with lattice or other open material allowed up to 6 feet. B. In the case of through lots, unless the prevailing front yard pattern on adjoining lots indicates otherwise, front yards shall be provided on all frontages. C. Where the front yard that would normally be required on a lot is not in keeping with the prevailing yard pattern, the DCD may waive the requirement for the normal front yard and substitute therefor a special yard requirement which shall not exceed the average of the yards provided on adjacent lots. D. In the case of corner lots, a front yard of the required depth shall be provided in accordance with the prevailing yard pattern, and a second front yard of half the depth required generally for front yards in the district shall be provided on the other frontage. For all buildings except as described below: MDR....50 ft HDR ....50 ft Maximum building length with bonus for modulating off - sets: For structures with a maximum building height of 2 stories or 25 ft., whichever is less, and having horizontal modulation or a minimum vertical change in roof profile of 4 feet at least every two units or 50 feet, whichever is less: For structures with a building height over 2 stories or 25 ft., whichever is less, with a horizontal and vertical modulation of 4 ft. or an 8 ft. modulation in either direction: For townhouse structures with horizontal modulation or a minimum MDR....100 ft HDR ....200 ft MDR....100 ft HDR ....200 ft MDR....80 ft vertical change in roof profile of 4 feet at least every two units or HDR ....125 ft 50 feet, whichever is less: 18.50.083 Maximum Building Length • • E. In the case of corner lots with more than two frontages, the DCD shall determine the front yard requirements, subject to the following conditions: 1. At least one front yard shall be provided having the full depth required generally in the district; 2. The second front yard shall be the minimum set forth in the district; 3. In the case of through lots and corner lots, there will be no rear yards but only front and side yards; 4. In the case of through lots, side yards shall extend from the rear lines of front yards required. In the case of corner lots, yards remaining after full and halfdepth front yards have been established shall be considered side yards. (See Figure 18- 4.) (Ord. 1 -58 §1(part), 1995) In the MDR and HDR zones, the maximum building length shall be as follows: Modulation shall be required for every 2 units or 50 feet, whichever is less, as measured along the building's length. Grouping of offsets in maximum four unit modules may be permitted only with BAR approval (see Figure 18 -5). (Ord. 1758 § 1 (part). 1995) 18.50.085 Maximum Percent Development Area Coverage In the MDR and HDR zones the maximum percent development area coverage shall be 50 %, except for senior citizen housing developments in HDR. If the senior citizen housing building is converted to regular apartments the 50% limit must be met. Townhouse developments are allowed up to a maximum of 75% development area coverage. (Ord. 18.30 §2S, / 998: Or 1-5,x' §1 (part). 1 18.52.060 Recreation Space Requirements In all MDR and HDR zoning districts, any proposed multiple - family structure, complex or development shall provide on the premises and for the use of the occupants a minimum amount of recreation space according to the following provisions: • • 1. Required Area. a. For each proposed dwelling unit in the multiple - family development, a minimum of 400 square feet (100 square feet for senior citizen housing) of recreation space shall be provided. Any multiple- family structure, complex or development shall provide a minimum of 1,000 square feet of total recreation space. b. Townhouse units shall provide at least 250 sf of the 400 sf of recreation space as private, ground level open space measuring not less than 10 feet in any dimension. c. The front, side and rear yard setback areas required by the applicable zoning district shall not qualify as recreation space unless portions are incorporated into private open space with a minimum dimension of 10 feet on all sides. 2. Indoor or Covered Space. a. No more than 50% of the required recreation space may be indoor or covered space in standard multi - family developments. Senior citizen housing must have at least 20% indoor or covered space. b. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of extensively improved indoor recreation space provided. Interior facility improvements would include a full range of weight machines, sauna, hot tub, large screen television and the like. 3. Uncovered Space. a. A minimum of 50% of the total required recreation space shall be open or uncovered, up to 100% of the total requirement may be in open or uncovered recreation space in standard multi - family developments. Senior citizen housing allows up to 80% of recreation space to be outdoors and has no minimum outdoor space requirement. b. Recreation space shall not exceed a 4% slope in any direction unless it is determined that the proposed space design clearly facilitates and encourages the anticipated use as endorsed by the Director. c. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum credit of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of outdoor pool and surrounding deck area. 4. General Requirements. a. Multiple - family complexes (except senior citizen housing and townhouses with nine or fewer units) which provide dwelling units with two or more bedrooms shall provide adequate recreation space for children with at least one space for the 5- to -12- year old group. Such space shall be at least 25% but not more than 50% of the total recreation space required under TMC 18.52.060.1, and shall be designated, located and maintained in a safe condition. b. Adequate fencing, plant screening, or other buffer shall separate the recreation space from parking areas, driveways or public streets. c. The anticipated use of all required recreation areas shall be specified and designed to clearly accommodate that use. (Ord I S'2 ,0 4 (part i. MO) 18.56.065 Residential Parking Requirements A. Two off - street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit which contains up to three bedrooms. One additional off - street parking space shall be required for every two bedrooms in excess of three bedrooms in a dwelling unit (i.e., four and five bedroom • dwelling units shall have three off - street parking spaces, six and seven bedroom homes shall have four spaces, and so on). B. Each unit in a townhouse development shall have an attached garage with parking for at least one vehicle. lit, C. The Director shall have the discretion to waive the requirement to construct a portion of the off - street parking requirement if, based on a parking demand study, the property owner establishes that the dwelling will be used primarily to house residents who do not and will not drive due to a factor other than age. Such a study shall assure that ample parking is provided for residents who can drive, guests, caregivers and other persons who work at the residence. If such a waiver is granted, the property owner shall provide a site plan which demonstrates that, in the event of a change of use which eliminates the reason for the waiver, there is ample room on the site to provide the number of off - street parking spaces required by this Code. In the event that a change of use or type of occupant is proposed that would alter the potential number of drivers living or working at the dwelling, the application for change of use shall be conditioned on construction of any additional off - street parking spaces required to meet the standards of this Code. (Ord 1076 §62 2001) 18.60.050 Design Review Criteria A. Generally. The BAR is authorized to request and'rely upon any document, guideline, or other consideration it deems relevant or useful to satisfy the purpose and objectives of this chapter, specifically including but not limited to the following criteria. The applicant shall bear the full burden of proof that the proposed development plans satisfy all of the criteria. The BAR may modify a literal interpretation of the design review criteria if, in their judgment such modifications better implement the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. C. Multi- Family, Hotel and Motel Design Review Criteria. In reviewing any multi- family, hotel or motel application the following criteria shall be used by the BAR in its decision making as well as the Multi - Family Design Manual or Townhouse Design Manual. • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director CHAIR, GEORGE MALINA, VICE CHAIR, CHUCK PARRISH, COMMISSIONERS, ALLAN EKBERG, MARGARET BRATCHER, BILL ARTHUR, HENRY MARVIN, AND LYNN PETERSON PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA MAY 24, 2007 TUKWILA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS OPEN PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ATTENDANCE III. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES — 4 -26 -07 IV. SWEARING IN OATH PLANNING COMMISSION VI. TOUR OF TOWNHOUSE PROJECT (Time Permitting) VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURN • V. CASE NUMBER: L07 -024 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: A series of code amendments dealing with retaining wall setbacks, limited variance for single family lot size, expansion of non- conforming residences, wetland mitigation bank credits, SEPA thresholds, and housekeeping corrections. LOCATION: City wide Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 q- Representing City Staff: BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES APRIL 26, 2007 The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Malina at 7:00 PM Present: Chair George Malina, Vice Chair Chuck Parrish, Commissioners, Henry Marvin, and Lynn Peterson Absent: Allan Ekberg, Bill Arthur and Margaret Bratcher Nora Gierloff and Moira Bradshaw COMMISSIONER MARVIN MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FROM MARCH 22, 2007. COMMISSIONER PARRISH SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Chair Malina swore in those wishing to give public testimony. BOARD OF ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW CASE NUMBER: L07 -009 APPLICANT: Cheesecake Factory REQUEST: Design Review approval of a 10,000 sq. ft. restaurant at a Westfield Mall pad site. LOCATION: 205 Strander Blvd. Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development, gave the presentation for staff. She requested that the staff report dated April 13, 2007 be entered into the record. There was background provided on the project, which was part of the mall expansion approval in 2004. Part of the condition for the approval was for staff to come back to the Planning Commission to address the proposed elevations for the project. Commissioner Parrish pointed out the need for corrections on Attachment I of the sign elevation plans in the staff report. The North and South elevation labeling should be reversed, as well as, the West and East elevation labeling. Ms. Bradshaw stated, in addition to the elevation, the applicant requests approval of a modified site plan. Ms. Bradshaw conveyed the applicant's strong feelings about the orientation and size of the building, and the desire to set it back from Strander Boulevard. An overview of the proposed request was provided. Staff recommends approval with the following two conditions: 1. Create a landscape element within the pedestrian walkway from Strander Boulevard. 2. Provide a single color for pedestrian light pole and fence around outdoor dining areas. Commissioner Peterson raised questions regarding visibility of the mechanical equipment on the roof. Commissioner Malina commented on the possibility of painting the equipment. Ms. Bradshaw indicated that the equipment would be visible and suggested the Commission address questions and potential screening and venting issues with the architect. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2007 Page 2 of 4 • • Doug Middleton, Senior Project Manager, for the applicant, addressed questions pertaining to the mechanical equipment. Mr. Middleton replied that the equipment would not be painted and it would have a gray powder finish and the roof would be painted white. After further inquiry from Commissioner Malina, Mr. Middleton agreed that the roof top unit and most of the equipment could easily be painted white. Mr. Middleton also provided explanation on the resolution of the number of signs. The applicant was agreeable with staff's two conditions. REBUTTAL: None There were no further comments. The Public Hearing was closed. The Planning Commission deliberated. COMMISSIONER MARVIN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND TWO CONDITIONS ON CASE NUMBER L07 -009. COMMISSIONER PARRISH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: L07 -007 Westfield Southcenter Mall Approve a comprehensive exterior signage package for the mall. Westfield Southcenter Mall Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development gave the presentation for staff. This project was approved in 2004, with the condition to return to the Planning Commission with a comprehensive sign plan for the mall expansion. Background was provided on the site. Currently the Planning Commission is addressing signage for Westfield; however, signage erected for tenants will not be evaluated by the Commission. Staff reviewed the overall signage at the mall and addressed how it would fit in with the overall design for the mall expansion. Both wall and free standing signs are proposed for the site. Explanation of the proposed signage was provided. The applicant is proposing the concept of naming the south facade drive with a street sign, "Lupine Drive ". Discussions are underway with the Fire Department to determine the pros and cons of naming the internal drive. Staff recommends approval of the signage package with the following three conditions: 1. Create landscape areas at the base of freestanding signs in the north half of the site and landscape with an appropriate plant palette. 2. Adequately screen the base / pole of the freeway interchange sign. 3. Setback the face of the AA1 and AA2 freestanding signs a minimum of five feet from the back of any walkway and setback the side edge or angled faced of these signs a minimum of 3 feet from the back of any walkway. Nicolas Lee, Project Developer, for the applicant, addressed questions from the Commissioners. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2007 Page 3 of 4 • • Jonathan Hobbs, Senior Project Manager, Square Peds Designs, for the applicant, addressed questions regarding construction and night lighting of the Brand Alliance signage. NO REBUTTAL: There were no further comments. The Public Hearing was closed. The Planning Commission deliberated. COMMISSIONER PARRISH MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND THREE CONDITIONS ON CASE NUMBER LO -007. COMMISSIONER MARVIN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: REBUTTAL: None L06 -085 Open Frame LLC Design Review approval of a 6,000 sq. ft. restaurant and 30,000 sq. ft. fitness center along with site and landscape design. 150 Andover Park W. Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Development, gave the presentation for staff. Ms. Gierloff gave an overview of the proposed project. A material board was passed around for the proposed California Pizza Kitchen building. The applicant has presented a sign package but has not completely identified the specific signs they are proposing. Ms. Gierloff pointed out that all of the sign options were presented to the Commission in their package. There will be limited transparency on the LA fitness building, primarily due to the function of the building. Screening will be provided with trees along the front of the building to break up some of the blank areas. Staff recommends approval with the following two conditions: 1. The pedestrian connections from the corner plaza to the restaurant and from the Acme building across the parking lot to Baker Blvd. must be constructed of concrete. 2. Bicycle racks must be installed at each building per TMC 18.56.130. Dave Kehle, Site Architect, for the applicant, introduced the owners of the site, and representatives for both projects. Mr. Kehle stated he liked the way everything was going, thanked Ms. Gierloff, and stated he agrees with staffs recommendations. The applicant plans to install the same site lighting that was approved on the Acme Bowl site. Clint Coleman, representative for the applicant, addressed questions regarding the north elevations of the California Pizza Kitchen building. Craig Kerbow, Architect, for the applicant, addressed questions. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2007 Page 4 of 4 There were no further comments. The Public Hearing was closed. The Planning Commission deliberated. Commissioner Marvin commented it should be ensured that the site distance of the exits and entrances are safe in the area. COMMISSIONER PARRISH MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND TWO CONDITIONS ON CASE NUMBER L06 -085. COMMISSIONER MARVIN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. DIRECTOR REPORT: • A web newsletter on planning from MRSC was handed out to the Commission. Meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens Secretary Adopted: 14%1A,' Tukwila City Coun l Agenda • / o �' 'ivr N., 2 , • COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE •• • '+r� _ ' o Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Councilmembers: • Joe Duffie • Joan Hernandez ` / *��` � " Rhonda Berry, City Administrator • Pam Carter • Jim Haggerton 1908 _ Verna Griffin, Council President • Pamela Linder • Dennis Robertson Monday, May 14, 2007; 7:00 PM Tukwila City Hall; Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS a. Introduction of new employee, Kim Gilman, Personnel Assistant. b. A proclamation designating May 15, 2007 as "Peace Officers' Memorial Day." c. Community Pride Award presented to Tom and Martha Loftus. Pg. 1 3. CITIZEN COMMENT At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on this agenda (please limit your comments to five minutes per citizen). To comment on an item listed on this agenda, please save your comments until the issue is presented for discussion. 4. SPECIAL ISSUES a. Authorize acceptance of printing quote for 200,000 new Seattle Southside Vacation Planners in the amount of $62,448.00. b. 57th Avenue Mini Park Extension. c. Single - Family Building Height and /or Setback Standards. d. Code amendment for SEPA process (State Environmental Policy Act). e. SAO (Sensitive Areas Ordinance) Mitigation Ratio for Wetland Banks. f. Code amendment regarding townhouse development. g. Resolution supporting the Integrated Roads and Transit Plan. h. Bid award for 2007 Overlay and Repair Program. i. Emergency Management issues. Pg. 3 Pg.13 Pg.21 Pg.33 Pg.39 Pg.53 Pg.75 Pg.81 Pg.89 5. REPORTS a. Mayor c. Staff e. Intergovernmental b. City Council d. City Attorney 6. MISCELLANEOUS 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION 8. ADJOURNMENT Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible. Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice to the City Clerk's Office 206 - 433- 1800/TDD 206 - 248 -2933. This notice is available at www.ci.tukwila.wa.us, and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities. Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped. II HOW TO TESTIFY • If you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and address clearly for the record. Please observe the basic rules of courtesy when speaking and limit your comments to five minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens but may not be able to take immediate action on comments received until they are referred to a Committee or discussed under New Business. COUNCIL MEETINGS No Council meetings are scheduled on the 5th Monday of the month unless prior public notification is given. Regular Meetings - The Mayor, elected by the people to a four -year term, presides at all Regular Council meetings held on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month at 7:00 p.m. Official Council action in the form of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing of ordinances can only be taken at Regular Council meetings. Committee of the Whole Meetings - Council members are elected for a four -year term. The Council president is elected by the Council members to preside at all Committee of the Whole meetings for a one -year term. Committee of the Whole meetings are held the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 7:00 p.m. Issues discussed are forwarded to the Regular Council meeting for official action. GENERAL INFORMATION At each Council meeting citizens are given the opportunity to address the Council on items that are not included on the agenda during CITIZENS COMMENTS. Please limit your comments to five minutes. Special Meetings may be called at any time with proper public notice. Procedures are the same as those used in Regular Council meetings. Executive Sessions may be called to inform the Council of pending legal action, financial, or personnel matters. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action of matters affecting the public interest such as land -use laws, annexations, rezone requests, public safety issues, etc. Section 2.04.150 of the Tukwila Municipal Code states the following guidelines for Public Hearings: 1. The proponent shall speak first and is allowed 15 minutes for a presentation. 2. The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation. 3. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal. 4. Citizens who wish to address the Council may speak for 5 minutes each. No one may speak a second time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken. 5. After each speaker has spoken, the Council may question the speaker. Each speaker can respond to the question,'but may not engage in further debate at this time. 6. After the Public Hearing is closed, the Council may discuss the issue among themselves without further public testimony. Council action may be taken at this time or postponed to another date. Meetin Date 05 14 07 P d MI M or's review MOM C - 7 review ❑ Motion Mtg Date ❑ Resolution Mtg Date ❑ Ordinance Mtg Date ❑ Bid Award Mtg Date ❑ Public Hearing Mtg Date ❑ Other Mtg Date CATEGORY 0 Discussion Mtg Date 5 -14-07 — 1--1 , r1 „_,_.,, r T)_1___ n DTP/ COUNCIL AGENDI SYNOPSIS Initials ITEM INFORMATION ITEM NO. ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 5/14/07 CAS NUMBER: ©I — 065 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Single Family Building Height and /or Setback Standards SPONSOR'S REVIEWED BY ❑ COW Mtg. El Utilities Cmte DATE: 4 -24 -07 ® CA &P Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ F &S Cmte ❑ Parks Comm ❑ Transportation Cmte ❑ Planning Comm. RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Forward Council decision to the Planning Commission CoMMITrEE Forward to full Council for consideration 'C / °FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $0 AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $ $ Fund Source: N/A Comments: •ECORD:_OE. COUNCIL ACTION:: 5 -14 -07 5 -14 -07 AT_TAC:HMENTS_ Information Memo dated 5/7/07 with Attachments Community Affairs and Parks Committee minutes of 4/24/07 21 SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Adm Svcs I DCD U Finance U .tire LJ 1_egat U ran u roe u 1 w The proposal is an exploration of options to increase the compatibility of infill development SUMMARY in the LDR Zone with existing neighborhood patterns. ❑ Motion Mtg Date ❑ Resolution Mtg Date ❑ Ordinance Mtg Date ❑ Bid Award Mtg Date ❑ Public Hearing Mtg Date ❑ Other Mtg Date CATEGORY 0 Discussion Mtg Date 5 -14-07 — 1--1 , r1 „_,_.,, r T)_1___ n DTP/ COUNCIL AGENDI SYNOPSIS Initials ITEM INFORMATION ITEM NO. ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 5/14/07 CAS NUMBER: ©I — 065 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Single Family Building Height and /or Setback Standards SPONSOR'S REVIEWED BY ❑ COW Mtg. El Utilities Cmte DATE: 4 -24 -07 ® CA &P Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ F &S Cmte ❑ Parks Comm ❑ Transportation Cmte ❑ Planning Comm. RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Forward Council decision to the Planning Commission CoMMITrEE Forward to full Council for consideration 'C / °FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $0 AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $ $ Fund Source: N/A Comments: •ECORD:_OE. COUNCIL ACTION:: 5 -14 -07 5 -14 -07 AT_TAC:HMENTS_ Information Memo dated 5/7/07 with Attachments Community Affairs and Parks Committee minutes of 4/24/07 21 SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Adm Svcs I DCD U Finance U .tire LJ 1_egat U ran u roe u 1 w The proposal is an exploration of options to increase the compatibility of infill development SUMMARY in the LDR Zone with existing neighborhood patterns. • • INFORMATION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Mullet Community Affairs and Par \ ommittee FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Direc DATE: May 7, 2007 SUBJECT: Code Amendment — LDR Building Standards ISSUE Should the City change residential standards such as height or setbacks to reduce the impact on adjacent houses? BACKGROUND The Council asked staff to review the way building height was calculated after receiving complaints about a new house that the neighbors felt was out of scale with the surrounding development. Currently the LDR zone allows buildings up to 30 feet in height measured according to the method in the Washington State Building Code (IBC 2003) from the average ground surface to the midpoint of a pitched roof. At their March 15 meeting the CAP reviewed a diagram showing how various jurisdictions calculated building height and how that affected the building envelope, see Attachment A. There was some support for following Kent's approach which is a 35' height limit from "the lowest point within five feet of the foundation." Some codes specify that the point of measurement must be from "undisturbed ground ". The Kent approach would have the effect of reducing the allowable height of buildings on slopes by a few feet depending on the steepness of the slope and whether retaining walls were used to alter the surrounding grades but raising the height of buildings on flat ground if the height limit was changed to 35'. CAP reviewed the issue again at the April 24 meeting and wanted to bring three options to the COW: • Increasing rear yard setbacks from 10 to 15 feet; • Increasing rear yard setbacks from 10 to 15 feet for up to two stories and further increasing the rear yard setback to 25 feet if the house has a third story; • No action. NG Page 1 05/09/2007 9:44:00 AM Q:\ CODEAMND\5- 14Bui1dHeightCOW.DOC 23 30' 2.5 stryl35' 2 stry/35' 2 stry/30' 30' 35' 6,500 7,600 8,000 4,500 5,000 to 15,000 7,200 50' 50' 60', 70' Corner 50', 60' Corner 50' 35% at 6,500 sf 45% Greater of 2,500sf or 35% Greater of 2,500sf or 35% 35% 35% 20' 10' 30' 15', 20' garage 20' 20' 10' 10' 20' 15', 20' garage 20' 5' 5' 15' Total, 5' min. 5' 5' 5' 10' 5' 25' 20' 15' 5' 60% 70% 24 • • ALTERNATIVES/DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Building height is only one element of the zoning regulations that control the bulk or building envelope of a structure. The others are lot coverage, setbacks and in some jurisdictions floor area ratio (FAR). Simply lowering building height or changing the way it is calculated may not result in new buildings that are significantly more compatible with existing development patterns. In the case of the house that sparked this discussion changing the building height measuring point from average grade plane to lowest elevation within 5' would only have lowered the house by about 5 feet and not reduced the bulk. Other ideas would be to control the bulk of houses through a FAR or use tiered setbacks such as those in the multi - family zones. Building Envelope Below is a table listing single family development standards in nearby jurisdictions: Standard Height Lot Area Lot Width Lot Coverage Setbacks: Front Second Front Side Rear Impervious Surface Jurisdiction Renton SeaTac Sullen Q:\CODEAMNDI5 -14B uildl ieightCO W.DOC NG - 2 - 05/09/2007 } Lot Coverage The LDR zone currently limits the lot coverage (footprint) of all of the structures on a site to roughly 35% (the percentage decreases as the lot size increases) TMC 18.10.057. This percentage is common among jurisdictions that use this regulation, see table above. However the building size can be maximized by building that footprint straight up three stories. Floor Area Ratio FAR is expressed as the total square footage of the building(s) divided by the square footage of the lot. This links the size of the building to the size of the lot regardless of the number of stories. Common single family residential FARs range from .45 to .65 which would limit a house on a 6,500 sf lot to between 2,925 and 4,225 sf. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan suggests a maximum FAR of .5 not including the basement area (CP 7.6.4) The house that triggered this discussion was on a 13,500 sf lot and had a FAR of .34. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1:1 Ratio 1 story OM, ' lot coverage) Setbacks Increasing the side and rear setback distance for the second and third stories of a house would be another way to reduce the impact of a house on the adjacent properties. The current LDR setbacks are 20' in the front, 10' on the second front, 5' on the sides and 10' in the rear. Tiered side and rear setbacks that increased by 5' per story for lots that are at least 50' wide would modulate the side elevations of the houses and reduce their bulk. The increases could have the effect of limiting the development potential of smaller or oddly shaped lots and preclude the use of stock plans by developers. The house that triggered this discussion is set back 5 to 7' from one side, 8' from the other and 65' in the back. The complaint arose from a neighbor whose back yard faced the new house's side yard. This was due to the comer location, but is a common occurrence with infill development. See Attachment B for an example of how the front, side and rear yard are commonly assigned to a new lot in a short plat. In interior lots accessed off of a private road the rear yard often faces the neighboring property's side yard and vice versa. Q:\ CODEAMND \5- 14BuildHeightCOW.DOC NG • • 2 stories (50% tot coverage) - 3 - 05/09/2007 25 26 OPTIONS The CAP suggested the following options for the Council's discussion: 1) Change the rear yard setback in LDR from 10 to 15 feet; 2) Increase the rear yard setback in LDR for all houses to 15 feet and to 25 feet if the house has a third story (with a possible exception for alley accessed garages or accessory structures); 3) No Action. r , s.+'P -, z, PA.,ve +D c•iI A Tr bwv,1 .n , -L1 44 k..),4 - At., j ,✓J,./lf I rt Vic.. RECOMMENDATION a G'�c d4� b71 e- �•a•�,�c— 1 Tukwila's single family house regulations are similar to those of nearby, similarly situated communities as seen in the table above. None of the changes to building standards suggested by the CAP would have made a significant difference in the bulk of the house that was the source of the neighborhood complaint. However if the Council wished to continue to pursue this issue staff could develop design standards that would require more site sensitive designs. Attachment A: Comparison of Maximum Building Height Standards Attachment B: Yard Location Diagram Attachment C: Seattle Code for Structures and Setbacks C j „ v_ b C,. L ►e_ wf vLS(' ``1 Q:\CODEAMND15-14BuildHeightCOW.DOC NG • • ¥ Q -4 - 05/09/2007 Comparison of Maximum Building Height Standards Upper Datum City Max Height Lower Datum Mrvila 30 Average grade Mid -point of sloped roof Kent 35 Lowest grade within 5 feet Mid-point of sloped roof 35 Highest grade within 5 feet * Mid -point of sloped roof Renton Seatac 30 Average grade Mid -point of sloped roof Buren 35 Average grade Highest point of structure -- - .• -I- •, - . -•- ,.. -- • .- iIiIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!II! ■I,■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ MUIM MII■■' INI•!,: ■ ■ ■ ■�•�■ I► / ■ ■l/►7 ■■ WMINIE �IM ■•�■■ ■N ■ ■ ■■■■■ ■::I� ■ ■! � ■ ■■ �� i . ■■■■■■■■■r■■/2■■■■� ■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■■y■■■Nr ■■■i?!1■■■■ I►7►M■ ■1■ ■ ■■.■■■■■■■■■■ii �� ■■■■ ■r■■■PIAA MI 111111111E1111111111 MO mummummaip ■ ■■■■■■■r�i. ■■■■■■■■■■P.i■ ►�i■1E1 ■■■■■R�:.■■■■ ■■■■��•►■■■■■ 1111 / i■iiii 1 1■■■■ ■� ,.■■■■■■■�■� . n 1111■■ �1!if/■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�M ■■■■■■■■■ onwam mmom i ■■ 1111111 � ►.■■■r ■■■W■■■M■■■■►. 1111■■■ ��i ■■■■.�■■■.■ �■ ■ ■� ■■■■■■■■■■ r■ ■■■■■■■■■■L�■■■■�■■■■■■ _ . . .� _ . 11 11■ 11lililIlIlln111111111111lilIlIlIll11111 ■■■ __..� �■■■■���! �■s ■■■■ iiiiii :.1111■ � ■��. ■ ■■■■■ ■! ■■■■■1 ■■1._Z■■■ .�■ ■ __...■ � 11111■ ■_ ■■.1•..•�■ ■■■ .... MOMAREMOMMOMMAMMEMEMEMMAMMEM iiiiii ■►• ' II IIP5IIII Ti IIIIRIIII si Himlow ., .1,o IMEMEENVIMI 7 PRIVATE DRAINAGE r. ALONG 117T1 ROW f 28 N 89'02'30" W 0 0 Lri e 8 Z -0— 20' O( `a l Q c• �-- �- - ---1 -- S. 117th STREET N 89'02'30" W 91.00' i S89 47.56' 20' 116.10'(MEAS) 114.8 71.00' 0 - LS --- NEW LOT UNE N89'02'30 "W Existing House LOT 1 6,539 SQ.F Proposed House LOT 2 6,501 SQ.FT. 89.00' Existing Driveway � N ,,._ __ \0 1 ••■••- T 1 10' 10' 0 N c0 Attachment B 323.634'(MEAS) 339 NEW 10' PVT \N89'02'30 "W 2.00' RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RI' VC SIDE SEW Bt • • Attachment C Seattle Zoning Code for Structures and Setbacks in Single Family Zones SMC 23.44.014 Yards. Yards are required for every lot in a single - family residential zone. A yard which is larger than the minimum size may be provided. B. Rear Yards. The rear yard shall be twenty -five (25) feet. The minimum required rear yard for a lot having a depth of less than one hundred twenty -five (125) feet shall be twenty (20) percent of the lot depth and in no case less than ten (10) feet. When the required rear yard abuts upon an alley along a lot line, the centerline of the alley between the side lot lines extended shall be assumed to be a lot line for purposes of the provision of rear yard and the determination of lot depth; provided, that at no point shall the principal structure be closer than five (5) feet to the alley. When a lot in any single - family zone abuts at the rear lot line upon a public park, playground or open water, not less than fifty (50) feet in width, the rear yard need not exceed the depth of twenty (20) feet. D. Exceptions from Standard Yard Requirements. No structure shall be placed in a required yard except pursuant to the following subsections: 1. Certain Accessory Structures. Any accessory structure may be constructed in a side yard which abuts the rear or side yard of another lot, or in that portion of the rear yard of a reversed corner lot within five (5) feet of the key lot and not abutting the front yard of the key lot, upon recording with the King County Department of Records and Elections an agreement to this effect between the owners of record of the abutting properties. Any accessory structure which is a private garage may be located in that portion of a side yard which is either within thirty-five (35) feet of the centerline of an alley or within twenty -five (25) feet of any rear lot line which is not an alley lot line, without providing an agreement as provided in Section 23.44.016. 6. Private Garages, Covered Unenclosed Decks, Roofs Over Patios and Other Accessory Structures in Rear Yards. a. Any attached private garages or covered, unenclosed decks or roofs over patios are portions of principal structures. They may extend into the required rear yard, but shall not be within twelve (12) feet of the centerline of any alley, nor within twelve (12) feet of any rear lot line which is not an alley lot line, nor closer than five (5) feet to any accessory structure. The height of private garages shall meet the provisions of Section 23.44.016L D2 and the height of the roof over unenclosed decks and patios may not 29 30 • • exceed twelve (12) feet. The roof over these decks, patios and garages shall not be used as a deck. Any detached private garage meeting the requirements of Section 23.44.0161, Parking location and access, or detached permitted accessory structure meeting the requirements of Section 23.44.040M, General provisions, may be located in a rear yard. If a private garage has its vehicular access facing the alley, the private garage shall not be within twelve (12) feet of the centerline of the alley. b. Garages meeting the standards of Section 23.44.016M and other accessory structures meeting the standards of Sections 23.44.040M or 23.44.041, shall be permitted in required rear yards, subject to a maximum combined coverage of forty (40) percent of the required rear yard. In the case of a rear yard abutting an alley, rear yard coverage shall be calculated from the centerline of the alley. 7. Private Garages in Front Yards of Through Lots. On through lots less than one hundred twenty-five (125) feet in depth, either an accessory garage structure or a portion of the principal structure containing a garage shall be permitted to locate in one (1) of the front yards. Private garages, either as accessory structures or as a portion of the principal structure, shall be limited as set forth in Section 23.44.016 '. The front yard in which the garage may be located shall be determined by the Director based on the location of other accessory garages on the block. If no pattern of garage location can be determined, the Director shall determine in which yard the accessory garage shall be located based on the prevailing character and setback patterns of the block. COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes April 24, 2007- 5:00 p.m. PRESENT Councilmembers: Staff: Guests: CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Linder called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. Community Affairs & Parks Committee Pam Linder, Chair; Pam Carter and Dennis Robertson Jim Morrow; Bruce Fletcher; Jack Pace; Nora Gierloff and Kimberly Matej Eric Reinhardt; Todd Heistuman and Mikel Hanson City of Tukwila II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Building Height Issue DCD staff has previously come to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee to discuss building height issues. Most recently, the Committee asked staff to review the building height regulations utilized by the City. Nora Gierloff and Jack Pace presented their findings to the Committee as well as their recommended changes. Based on previous complaints surrounding building height issues, it appears as the issue also includes bulk. In comparison to neighboring cities, Tukwila is average to lower intensity. Tukwila calculates height restrictions following the International Building Code. After a brief discussion, Nora urged the Committee not to change the way in which the City calculates building height. She outlined other possible alternatives, including: • Reduce the allowable building height • Reduce the lot coverage standard • Limit the floor area ratio (FAR) • Increase or tier rear and side setbacks Discussion took place among Committee members and staff as to the possible alternatives and concerns regarding the need to avoid focusing on one issue and in turn, limiting residents. Dennis Robertson expressed the desire to identify a general change that will be applicable to most cases. He feels that rather than telling residents how to design their house, the City should consider increasing setbacks. Pam Carter articulated her concern of unintended consequences resulting from a change in setbacks (i.e.: residents with detached garages since anything over 30 inches tall is subject to the setback regulations). Todd Heistuman, a local developer, commented that almost all new houses in Tukwila will be built on re- platted land area. He stated that Seattle allows accessory structures in the backyard with constraints and that the purpose of setbacks is to provide quality of life and visual impacts. Todd believes that Tukwila has a very minimal lot standard in comparison to other cities. He thinks that the City should study cause and effect prior to making any decisions on regulations. 31 32 Community Affairs & Parks Come Minutes • April 24, 2007 - Page 2 The Committee agreed that there is not a "quick fix" to fit this problem. They agree that Council does not desire to revamp the entire code, but rather identify a possible area of regulation in order to avoid future concerns such as the complaint brought forth at the March 27 and April 9 Community Affairs and Parks meetings (also see Council minutes of April 10, 2007). Additionally, the Committee was in consensus of the desire expressed by full Council for this issue not to consume an inordinate amount of staff time. Dennis commented that he believes that the simplest solution to this issue is to increase the rear setback to 15', 25' for a three -story and then consider accessory buildings. Dennis requested that Jack secure a copy of the Seattle Code regarding garages and accessory structures and how they pertain to allies, etc. and submit this information to the agenda packet for full Council review at the May 14 COW. The Committee feels strongly that this issue needs to be discussed with full Council. The following three proposals will be taken to Council for discussion and consideration: 1. Leave the Building Height Code as is, with no changes 2. Increase rear setback to 15' for every residence 3. Increase rear setback to 15' feet for two -story, and 25' for three -story The Building Height limitation would cover any structure in the LDR Zone that requires a building permit. In addition to bringing these proposals to full Council, staff will also submit a cursory review of existing permits as impacted by each proposal, and the Seattle Code as requested above. DCD staff recommends that no changes be made to the City's current code. FORWARD TO MAY 14 COW FOR DISCUSSION. B. SAO Mitigation Ratio Amendment DCD staff brought forth a proposal to modify the existing Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) to allow the DCD Director to make case by case waiver of strict compliance with the City's current mitigation ratios if off -site mitigation is proposed in a wetland mitigation bank that has been approved by certain regulatory agencies. After discussion, Dennis Robertson expressed his opposition to this request as it appears that the ordinance is being changed for one specific example - in this situation, the exception is WSDOT. He stated that off -site mitigation should be here in Tukwila, and although he is sympathetic that the current regulations will cost the govemment more money, he does not feel that the government should exclude itself from environmental impacts. Additionally, he is concerned with leaving complete decision - making authority on each case to the discretion of the director rather than having specifications set forth in the ordinance. Jack Pace clarified that the idea of utilizing the administrator /director decision is not new to the SAO, and that the proposed amendment is not in violation of the spirit of the SAO. Additionally, the director would utilize an established chart, based on wetland type at which we are mitigating loss, to arrive at his/her decision. This is not a decision that the director would make at his/her own discretion without predetermined regulations. Jack stated that it is the intent of the City to ensure a cumulative impact verses small wetland areas, and the amendment would allow for this type of decision - making following a best available science approach. Meeting Date Prepa Mayor's review Heil review 05/14/07 31 ' 4.mt,A ' C uNCIL AGEND1P SYNOPSIS — Initialr ITEM INFORMATION ITEM NO. q,d AS NUMBER: Q — 1 i> I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 5/14/07 AGENDA ITEM TITLE SEPA Code Amendment :ATEGORY ® Discussion ❑ Resolution Mtg Date 5 - 14 - 07 Mtg Date SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Adm Svcs ® DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ Legal ❑ Pe'R ❑ Police ❑ PIV SPONSOR'S The proposal is to raise certain SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) review thresholds SUMMARY and streamline the review process by combining comment periods. REVIEWED BY EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $0 MTG. DATE 5 -14 -07 MTG. DATE 5 -14 -07 ❑ Motion Mtg Date ❑ COW Mtg. ❑ Utilities Cmte DATE: 4 -10 -07 CA &P Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Ordinance Mtg Date ❑ F &S Cmte ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Bid Award Mtg Date ❑ Public Hearing Mtg Date ❑ Transportation Cmte ❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other Mtg Date RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Forward Council decision to the Planning Commission COMMIT 1hE Approve proposal except for the threshold for single family construction COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $ $0 Fund Source: N/A Comments: RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION ATTACHMENTS Information Memo dated 5/9/07 Community Affairs and Parks Committee minutes of 4/10/07 33 Type of Action Tukwila's Threshold Maximum Threshold Proposed Thresholds Residential Construction 4 dwelling units 20 dwelling units 9 dwelling units Commercial/Industrial Construction 4,000 sf and 20 parking spaces 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces Parking Lots 40 parking spaces 40 parking spaces No Change Landfills or Excavations 500 cubic yards 500 cubic yards No Change To: Mayor Mullet Committee of the Whole FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Direct DATE: May 9, 2007 SUBJECT: Code Amendment — SEPA ISSUE Should the SEPA process and thresholds be streamlined to eliminate review or shorten timelines for smaller projects when environmental impacts are unlikely? • • INFORMATION MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that a standard checklist be filled out by a project proponent to identify the environmental impacts of certain actions. Actions include grading, dredging, paving, construction or demolition of buildings, and adoption or revision of most policies or regulations by a government agency. The intent is to identify environmental impacts that would otherwise "fall through the cracks" and provide a mechanism for public review and mitigation. Jurisdictions have flexibility in setting the thresholds that trigger SEPA review up to the maximum level allowed by the State. Jurisdictions can also take advantage of an optional SEPA process that allows them to identify projects where significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely and combine the comment period on that determination with the notice of application comment period for the underlying permit. NG Q:\CODEAMND\5-14COW_SEPA.DOC Page 1 05/09/2007 9:54:00 AM 35 36 • • The CAP reviewed this proposal on April 10, 2007 and unanimously recommended approval of all changes except there was no consensus on raising the threshold for single family construction. ANALYSIS Tukwila and other agencies with permitting authority have a comprehensive set of regulations to control negative impacts in the following areas that are subject to SEPA review: 1. Grading, filling, unstable soil and erosion 2. Air emissions (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency) 3. Surface water (wetlands and watercourses), groundwater, and storm water 4. Vegetation and landscaping 5. Animals, endangered species, wildlife habitat 6. Energy and natural resources 7. Environmental health, hazardous waste and noise, 8. Land and shoreline use 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics, design review 11. Light and glare 12. Recreation 13. Historic and cultural preservation 14. Transportation, traffic and parking 15. Public services 16. Utilities, sewer and water concurrency Because these standards are already in place we do not often have to rely on SEPA to impose mitigation conditions. Raising the threshold for number of new dwelling units to 9 would match the threshold for subdivision review. Raising the threshold for new buildings in commercial/industrial zones to 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces would streamline review of smaller projects. As an example the Claim Jumper restaurant is approximately 12,000 sf. Because SEPA triggers notice requirements some smaller projects that do not require other approvals such as design review would no longer require public notice if the threshold were changed. Short plats for 5 or more lots are required to provide public notice and raising the SEPA threshold would not change that. 18.104.090 Notice of Application - Procedure Notice of Application shall be provided as follows: 1. For all Type 2, 3, 4 and 5 decisions, and Type 1 decisions which require SEPA review, the Notice of Application shall be mailed by first class mail to the applicant and to departments and agencies with jurisdiction, except that a Notice of Application is not required in the case of a Code Interpretation pursuant to TMC 18.96.010 or a Sign Permit Denial pursuant to TMC Chapter 19.12. NG Page 2 05/09/2007 9:54:00 AM Q:\CODEAMNIA5-14COW_SEPA.DOC 2. For Type 1 decisions and Type 2 decisions which require SEPA review, the Notice of Application shall be provided by posting pursuant to TMC 18.104.110, provided that the Notice of Application for a Type 1 decision involving a single - family residence need not be posted but shall be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 3 For short plats of 5 through 9 lots and Type 3, 4 and 5 applications, the Notice of Application shall be posted pursuant to TMC 18.104.110 and mailed pursuant to TMC 18.104.120. Notice requirements for secure community transition facilities shall be in accordance with RCW 71.09.315 as amended. Very few development proposals require a full environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze impacts and develop mitigation measures. For the vast majority of development in Tukwila the City issues either a determination of non - significance (DNS) or a mitigated determination of non - significance (MDNS) after review of the SEPA checklist. The City is authorized under WAC 197 -11 -355 to make this determination early in the review process and combine the SEPA comment period with that of the underlying permit, saving about two weeks of processing time. PROPOSAL Raise the flexible thresholds for residential, commercial and industrial new construction as shown on the table above. Take advantage of the optional DNS process that allows for concurrent SEPA and project comment periods. RECOMMENDATION Both staff and the CAP recommend adopting the above changes though there was not consensus on the threshold for single family development. If the City ity Council chooses to amend the SEPA regulations the next step would be to send this change to the Planning Commission for its review and a recommendation. The City Council will then hold its own public hearing prior to adoption of any changes. NG Page 3 05/09/2007 9:54:00 AM Q: \CODEAMND\5- 14COW_SEPA.DOC 37 38 Community Affairs and PAI Committee Meeting Minutes • April 10, 2007 — Page 2 should not limit itself only to low -cost or "in- pond "solutions. He asked if we have looked at other potential problems besides phosphorous. Ms. Whiting said she has examined bacteria loads but has not found a problem. Also, she believes that the consultant will be looking at the best technical options for improving the pond water quality. Councilmember Carter expressed support for the study and the concept of the pond being a habitat rather than a place for people to swim. Mr. Pace offered to share the preliminary analysis in September before all of the analysis is completed. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO COW. As a related issue, the committee discussed the consultant selection for the Tukwila Pond Park design Phase I that was discussed at the April 9, 2007 Council meeting. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. c) Code Amendments • SEPA Nora Gierloff introduced this item. It would streamline the SEPA process and thresholds to eliminate review or shorten timelines for smaller projects when environmental impacts are unlikely. Ms. Gierloff referred to the table in the agenda report that compared Tukwila's thresholds to the State maximum and the proposed. Mr. Pace noted that most buildings would go through a design review process. Mr. Lancaster mentioned that with traffic concurrency and impact fee systems, we no longer rely on SEPA for mitigating traffic impacts like we once did. Councilmember Robertson asked if these changes would reduce our ability to control small infill developments on hillsides. Mr. Pace indicated that our sensitive areas ordinance addresses steep slope sites and tree permits and other regulations still apply. Councilmember Carter asked what would catch environmental issues like underground storage tanks? Mr. Pace and Ms. Whiting explained that owners have a responsibility to disclose and often the lenders require the analysis. Mr. Lancaster said that if an owner didn't disclose it, SEPA wouldn't have caught it anyway. Councilmember Robertson asked how these changes would have affected the City's process on a previous Fosterview development. Mr. Lancaster indicated that it would have had no effect on Fosterview, since that development included more than 9 dwelling units. He acknowledged it might eliminate a source of information that citizens are used to receiving on smaller residential developments (those between 4 and 9 units). He also noted that if any of the thresholds in the table are exceeded, SEPA is triggered, even if the proposed development is below any of the other thresholds.. Councilmember Robertson expressed support for the changes but also a desire to keep tools for the City to ensure the right kind of development. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL ON ALL CHANGES BUT KEEPING THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION THRESHOLD AT FOUR DWELLING UNITS INSTEAD OF THE PROPOSED NINE. FORWARD TO COW. • TOWNHOUSES Nora Gierloff introduced this item. It would change the Zoning Code to allow for development of fee simple townhomes. Some changes, such as minimum lot area, average lot width, setbacks and landscaping, would be necessary to allow fee simple townhouses since our development standards are based on a multi- family garden apartment style. Other changes would be necessary to enable a development pattern and density closer to the style of townhouses being built in other cities. One question is how prescriptive does Tukwila want to be on open space, such as requiring decks or onsite playgrounds, etc. Another issue is how to treat setbacks. The City's current tiered set -back standards may make development of fee simple economically infeasible. Councilmember Robertson expressed concern about the effects of eliminating the tiered set -back standards. Councilmember Carter emphasized that the design review process must address all sides of a building, not just the front. Ms. Gierloff discussed the current 50% development coverage limitation. Councilmember Robertson mentioned that using pervious surfaces (such as grasscrete) may be needed to ensure the development's environmental impact is not greater than development under today's standards. Councilmember Carter indicated this issue can be dealt with as the townhouse proposal goes through the approval process. She also expressed an interest in fence height being included in the design review process to minimize the amount of blank, high and solid walls facing the streets. FORWARD TO COW FOR DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION. • HOUSEKEEPING Nora Gierloff introduced this item on four amendments to the Zoning Code related to: permit processing, limitation on additions to homes that do not meet setbacks, retaining wall setbacks, and administrative variance for lot size. FORWARD TO PLANNING COMMISSION. Meeting Date Prepare by Mayor's review C ,cil review 05/14/07 JP 5 Motion Mfg Date LI Resolution Mtg Date D Ordinance Mtg Date EJ Bid Award Mtg Date fl Public Hearing Mtg Date Lil Other Mtg Date CATEGORY Ki Discussion Mtg Date SPONSOR J Council D Mayor I1Adm Svcs D Finance ['Fire 0 Legal 0 P&R 0 Police 0 PW @ DCD COUNCIL AGENA SYNOPSIS Initialr • ITEM NO. CAS NUMBER: 0 - 1- - — 0 5 Z ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 5/14/07 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Townhouse Code Amendments 5 Motion Mfg Date LI Resolution Mtg Date D Ordinance Mtg Date EJ Bid Award Mtg Date fl Public Hearing Mtg Date Lil Other Mtg Date CATEGORY Ki Discussion Mtg Date SPONSOR J Council D Mayor I1Adm Svcs D Finance ['Fire 0 Legal 0 P&R 0 Police 0 PW @ DCD SPONSOR'S The proposal SUMMARY development is to revise the Subdivision in multi-family zones. and Zoning Codes to encourage townhouse REVIEWED BY 0 COW Mtg. fl Utilities DATE: 4-10-07 Cmte J F&S Cmte 0 Transportation Cmte Parks Comm. 1 Planning Comm. r CA&P Cmte 1 Arts Comm. RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. COMMIT Forward Council decision to the Planning Commission Forward to full Council for consideration .. fOosfi ' cTI FLJ Souket.' EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED SO SO $0 Fund Source: N/A Comments: MTG.:DATE :, ' ' :, ■ T,„ RE CORb COUNCIL , 5-14-07 . , MTG. DATE: '',.:'':', : : ' ' ' ' -', .:,',::,..`, - -':'1-.ATTAC'HIVIENTS:' 5-14-07 Information Memo dated 5/4/07 with Attachments Community Affairs and Parks Committee minutes of 4/10/07 COUNCIL AGENA SYNOPSIS Initialr • ITEM NO. INFORMATION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Mullet Committee of the Whole FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Director DATE: May 4, 2007 SUBJECT: Townhouse Code Amendments • • ISSUES Should the Zoning and Subdivision Codes be changed to allow for development of townhomes on individual lots? Due to Zoning Code development standards such as side yard setback requirements only condominiums or apartments are allowed in our multi- family zones, though they could be built in townhouse form. In addition to the technical changes needed to create individual townhouse lots changes to Tukwila's bulk and coverage limitations may encourage the market to provide townhouses. Townhouses are typically significantly larger than stacked apartments or condominiums and under the current code fewer townhouse units could be built on a given site making them a less attractive development option. BACKGROUND DCD has periodically been approached by developers interested in building townhomes. However, they think that there is a stronger market for this type of housing on individually owned lots rather than as condominiums and the insurance requirements for condominiums make many small projects unfeasible. Providing an additional type of housing ownership (townhouses on individual lots) will expand the housing options of Tukwila's residents and provide multi - family property owners an alternative to apartment development. The CAP discussed the proposal on April 10 and moved it to the COW without a recommendation. They discussed a range of issues from the necessity for common children's play areas, concern about blank walls and the environmental impacts of dense development. ANALYSIS Due to Tukwila's prevailing pattern of narrow, deep lots in most infill situations townhouses would be perpendicular to the street, rather than the traditional row house with stoops along the street and alley access behind. See Attachment A for examples of some under- developed multi - family zoned lots in Tukwila that might attract townhouse development. While there are some larger sites, most have their street frontage at the narrow end of the lot. Below is an example of a typical market driven design for an 80'x240' infill lot showing the individual parcel lines through the buildings. NG Page 1 05/08/2007 8:42:00 PM E:\5-14COW_Townhouse.DOC 55 56 Below are some recently developed townhouses in nearby cities. -,5/7 / W [hl.4.a's in As The following areas of the Zoning Code would require amendments in order to allow for construction of townhouses on individual platted lots. • Minimum Lot Area Though the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone allows for one unit per 3,000 sf of lot area there is a minimum lot size of 8,000 sf. Similarly in High Density Residential (HDR) one unit is allowed for every 2,000 sf of lot area but the minimum lot size is 9,600 sf. Townhomes can be developed at these densities, but the minimum lot size requirements would need to be applied to the project as a whole rather than the individual townhouse lots. • Average Lot Width The minimum lot width of 60 feet required in the MDR and HDR zones would need to be applied to the project as a whole. Most townhouse lots are between 15 and 25 feet in width and 80 to 100 feet in depth. • Setbacks The side setbacks would need to be eliminated for interior units (because they are attached) and replaced by a minimum separation between townhouse buildings. NG Page 2 05/08/2007 8:42:00 PM E:15 -14COW Townhouse.DOC NG E:\5 -14CO W_Townhouse.DOC • • • Landscape The side yard landscape requirement would need to be eliminated for interior units though there should be some landscape requirement between buildings. In addition to the above code modifications which are necessary in order to create individual lots, optional changes to the following areas of the code would allow for a development pattern and density closer to what is being built elsewhere. If we did not change these bulk and coverage requirements the market might continue to favor apartment development. • Setbacks The front, second front, side and rear setbacks in MDR and HDR all increase for second and third floors. Since townhomes are almost always two to four stories in height these tiered setbacks may make development difficult on small lots even if they were applied to the project as a whole. Unlike an apartment building where a smaller unit could be substituted to create a larger setback on the second or third floor, a townhouse may only be 20 feet wide so an additional 10' of setback would compromise the usability of that floor. • Landscape There would need to be some flexibility with the front, second front, side and rear landscape requirements even if they were applied to the site as a whole, rather than each individual lot. • Development Coverage The development coverage limitation of 50% in MDR and HDR requires that half of the property be kept as landscape, pedestrian or recreation area. That would be difficult to meet at zoned densities with the typical townhouse development pattern given the size of the units, parking and fire access requirements. A building footprint limitation, similar that in the LDR zone, would be workable. • Recreation Space The development standards in Tukwila's multi - family zones are based on a garden apartment model with communal open space. Many of these standards would be in conflict with the townhouse building type where recreation space is usually provided in private yards or balconies. Since townhomes function more like single family residences than apartment or condominium complexes it may make sense to waive the requirement for communal children's play areas in favor of providing that space as private yards. Other city's codes require between 200 and 300 square feet of recreation space per unit with some granting 2 for 1 credit for balconies and patios and some requiring smaller amounts of common space in addition to the private space. Tukwila's MDR and HDR zones require 400 square feet of recreation space per unit with a 1,000 sq foot minimum. The space per unit may be feasible as a combination of yards and balconies, however the restriction that setback areas may not count toward this total (TMC 18.52.060) would not, so long as the yard had a minimum dimension of 10' in all directions. Page 3 05/08/2007 8:42:00 PM 57 58 PROPOSAL Private yard that includes side yard setback area Staff has grouped the proposed changes by subject area below. These include both the minimum changes necessary to allow platting of townhouse lots as well as additional changes that would bring Tukwila's standards closer to prevailing market driven development patterns. Subdivision Code One approach for how to handle this type of development is to treat townhouse and cottage projects similarly to a binding site plan. This would apply lot size, lot width, setback and landscape standards to the original "parent" parcel rather than the "unit" lots that contain the individual townhomes, see the Seattle code at Attachment B for an example. This would result in the same treatment adjacent to the neighboring properties while allowing a different ownership pattern. Other than that change both the short plat and subdivision platting process could follow the standard procedure with preliminary approval, infrastructure construction, final approval and then building permit. Some cities allow the building foundations to be constructed prior to final approval along with the rest of the site improvements so that the lot lines can be drawn accurately through the existing common walls, see the Olympia regulations at Attachment C for an example. If the buildings are constructed after the plat sometimes field conditions require boundary line adjustments to meet the as built conditions. Design Review The multi - family Design Review Criteria in the Zoning Code will work for townhouse development. The optional Multi- Family Design Guidelines booklet has some sections that may not be applicable, such as the child play area guidelines. Staff proposes that projects following the short subdivision process (up to 9 lots) be subject to administrative design review and projects requiring a subdivision be subject to public hearing design review. NG Page 4 05/08/2007 8:42:00 PM E:\5 -14COW Townhouse.DOC MDR/HDR Zoning Standards In addition modifications to the following bulk and coverage requirements would allow for a more market driven development pattern and density closer to what is achievable for stacked apartment/condominiums. • Setbacks Setback requirements should be applied to the parent lot rather than the unit lots since their purpose is to protect neighboring properties. The tiered setbacks in the MDR and HDR should only apply where there is an adjacency to LDR. • Development Coverage It is not possible to achieve zoned density with a typical townhouse product under the 50% development coverage limitation. Townhouses are typically twice as large as an average apartment usually with 2 to 3 bedrooms and a garage. A 50 -70% building footprint limitation is common in other jurisdictions. • Recreation Space Setback areas that are part of a private yard for an individual unit should be allowed to count toward the 400 sf recreation space requirement. All of the recreation space should be allowed to be private, rather than in required common play areas. Common space could still be provided for a portion of the requirement. Since the small private yards are generally fenced some thought should be given to limiting the height of fences, especially along street frontages. The Council has four choices: PC- r 1) Take no action on the proposal; 2) Make only those changes to the Subdivision Code necessary to allow the platting of individual townhouse lots; 3) Make additional changes to the tiered setbacks, development coverage and common open space requirements; and/or 4) Allow townhouse developments of u than public hearing deign revie d r to 9 lots to go through administrative rather �j•& - I (.l `�/�. U' `3 v L..✓"'� .�? L i 2CG.M(V \ l ll ��- Ina ,n v t./ ; 1 37 l 4,0 LA.AcS' - A&', l0 f RECOMMENDATION �» -- n� - �r 5 . -0 (v) I p lc Staff recommends making all of the above changes. If the Council chooses to pursue the townhouse code amendments they should forward the proposal to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and development of specific code language. The proposal would then come back to the Council for a public hearing before adoption. paL - `- Attachment A: Potential Multi- Family Redevelopment Sites 'p2 3Lr'- ,Nue-v -4.0 t Attachment B: Seattle Townhouse Regulations Attachment C: Olympia Townhouse Regulations Attachment D: SeaTac Townhouse Standards ✓u (" v C 0 Q N2`.)n NG �.3(a \ &L (- �12A' ��Dc- c — CI., e5 .6) LAJCZ .n 1‘,1, 15{420(17342:00 PM E:\5- 14COW_Townhouse.DOC I /� QV 014 l� ✓Y�t f2�� 'e, �� -1 2.: IG �[�lJJ4G( / f�� ��T I Mf7U r'�z..1 !1(�C� - ^�v`� _Ley 4 I� -r fitRl [.J'�.�✓�'C im_ 60 Examples of Potential Multi-Family Redevelopment Sites Hatching indicates MDR and HDR Zoning Attachment A • Attachment A 61 62 • • Attachment B Seattle Townhouse Regulations "Lot, parent" means the initial lot from which unit lots are subdivided for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, clustered housing in Single - family, Residential Small Lot and Lowrise zones, single - family residences in Lowrise zones, or any combination of the above types of residential development. "Lot, unit" means one (1) of the individual lots created from the subdivision of a parent lot for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, clustered housing in Single - family, Residential Small Lot and Lowrise zones, single - family residences in Lowrise zones, or any combination of the above types of residential development. "Short subdivision" means the division or redivision of land into nine (9) or fewer lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease, development or financing, and shall include all resubdivision of previously platted land and properties divided for the purpose of sale or lease of townhouse units. "Townhouse" means a form of ground- related housing in which individual dwelling units are attached along at least one (1) common wall to at least one (1) other dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit occupies space from the ground to the roof and has direct access to private open space. No portion of a unit may occupy space above or below another unit, except that townhouse units may be constructed over a common shared parking garage, provided the garage is underground. SMC 23.22.062 Unit lot subdivisions - Preliminary Plat. A. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the unit subdivision of land for townhouses, cottage housing developments, residential cluster developments, and single - family dwelling units in zones where such uses are permitted. B. Except for any site for which a permit has been issued pursuant to Section 23.44.041M for a detached accessory dwelling unit, sites developed or proposed to be developed with dwelling units listed in subsection A above may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. As a result of the subdivision, development on individual unit lots may be nonconforming as to some or all of the development standards based on analysis of the individual unit lot, except that any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. C. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. D. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common courtyard open spaces • • for cottage housing), and other similar features, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. E. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. SMC 23.24.045 Unit lot subdivisions - Short Plats. A. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the unit subdivision of land for townhouses, cottage housing developments, residential cluster developments, and single - family dwelling units in zones where such uses are permitted. B. Except for any site for which a permit has been issued pursuant to Section 23.44.041= for a detached accessory dwelling unit, sites developed or proposed to be developed with dwelling units listed in subsection A above may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. As a result of the subdivision, development on individual unit lots may be nonconforming as to some or all of the development standards based on analysis of the individual unit lot, except that any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. C. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. D. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common courtyard open space for cottage housing), and other similar features, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. E. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. The facts that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards 63 64 • • to the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. SMC 23.45.010 Lot coverage -- Lowrise zones. A. Except as provided in subsection C of this section, the maximum lot coverage permitted for principal and accessory structures shall not exceed the following limits: 1. For townhouses, the following lot coverage limits shall apply: Lowrise duplex/Triplex -- Forty -five (45) percent. Lowrise 1- 4 -- Fifty (50) percent. SMC 23.45.012 Modulation requirements — Lowrise zones. A. Front Facades. 1. Modulation shall be required if the front facade width exceeds thirty (30) feet with no principal entrance facing the street, or forty (40) feet with a principal entrance facing the street. 2. For terraced housing, only the portion of the front facade closest to the street is required to be modulated. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 A® ) B. Side Facades. On corner lots, side facades which face the street shall be modulated if greater than forty (40) feet in width for ground- related housing, and thirty (30) feet in width for apartments. Modulation shall not be required for the side facades of terraced housing. C. Interior Facades. Within a cluster development all interior facades wider than forty (40) feet shall be modulated according to the standards of subsection D of Section 23.45.012, provided that the maximum modulation width shall be forty (40) feet. Perimeter facades shall follow standard development requirements. D. Modulation Standards. 1. Lowrise Duplex/Triplex and Lowrise 1 Zones. a. Minimum Depth of Modulation. (1) The minimum depth of modulation shall be four (4) feet. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 BM ) 1 2. Lowrise 2, Lowrise 3 and Lowrise 4 Zones. • • (2) When balconies are part of the modulation and have a minimum dimension of at least six (6) feet and a minimum area of at least sixty (60) square feet, the minimum depth of modulation shall be two (2) feet. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 ON ) b. The minimum width of modulation shall be five (5) feet. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 Bii ) c. Maximum Width of Modulation. The modulation width shall emphasize the identity of individual units, but shall not be greater than thirty (30) feet. For units located one (1) above the other, the individuality of the units shall be emphasized through the location of driveways, entrances, walkways and open spaces. a. Minimum Depth of Modulation. (1) The minimum depth of modulation shall be four (4) feet (see Exhibit 23.45.012 BR in Lowrise 2 and Lowrise 3 zones and for townhouses in Lowrise 4 zones, and eight (8) feet for apartments in Lowrise 4 zones. (2) When balconies are part of the modulation and have a minimum dimension of at least six (6) feet and a minimum area of at least sixty (60) square feet, the minimum depth of modulation shall be two (2) feet. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 ) b. The minimum width of modulation shall be five (5) feet. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 B® ) c. Maximum Width of Modulation. (1) The maximum width of modulation shall be thirty (30) feet. (2) Exceptions to Maximum Width of Modulation in Lowrise 2, Lowrise 3 and Lowrise 4 Zones. i. When facades provide greater depth of modulation than required by subsection D1 of this section, then for every additional full foot of modulation depth, the width of modulation may be increased by two and one -half (2 1/2) feet, to a maximum width of forty (40) feet in Lowrise 2 zones and forty -five (45) feet in Lowrise 3 and Lowrise 4 zones. Subsection B of Section 23.86.002=, measurements, shall not apply. ii. The maximum width of modulation may be increased when facades are set back from the lot line further than the required setback, according to the following guideline: The width of modulation of such a facade shall be permitted to exceed thirty (30) feet by one (1) foot for every foot of facade setback beyond the required setback. This provision shall not be combined with the provisions of subsection D2c(2)i, nor shall it permit facades to exceed forty -five (45) feet in width without modulation. 65 66 • • 3. In Lowrise 1, Lowrise 2, Lowrise 3 and Lowrise 4 zones required modulation may start a maximum of ten (10) feet above existing grade, and shall be continued up to the roof. In Lowrise Duplex/Triplex zones modulation shall extend from the ground to the roof except for weather protection coverings such as awnings. SMC 23.45.014 Setback requirements -- Lowrise zones. A. Front Setback. 1. The required front setback shall be the average of the setbacks of the first principal structures on either side, except for cottage housing developments, subject to the following: Lowrise 1, Lowrise 2 and Lowrise 3 — In no case shall the setback be less than five (5) feet and it shall not be required to exceed fifteen (15) feet. Lowrise 4 — In no case shall the setback be less than five (5) feet and it shall not be required to exceed twenty (20) feet. 3. Townhouses. a. Portions of a structure may project into the required front setback, as long as the average distance from the front property line to the structure satisfies the minimum front setback requirement. b. No portion of a structure shall be closer to the front property line than five (5) feet. TABLE 23.45.014 A Side Setbacks - Lowrise Zones Height of Side Facade at Highest Point in Feet 0 -25 26 -30 31 -37 Structure Minimum Depth Average Side Setback Side in Feet in Feet Setback 65 or less 5 6 7 5 66 to 80 6 6 8 5 81 to 100 8 9 11 6 101 to 120 11 12 14 7 121 to 140 14 15 17 7 141 to 160 17 18 20 8 161 to 180 19 21 23 8 Greater than 1 in addition to 8 180 for every 50 in depth B. Rear Setbacks. Rear setbacks shall be provided as follows: 1. Zones. Lowrise Duplex/Triplex and Lowrise 1- Twenty (20) feet or twenty (20) percent of lot depth, whichever is less, but in no case less than fifteen (15) feet, except for cottage housing developments, which shall provide a minimum ten (10) foot rear setback. 1 • • Lowrise 2 -- Twenty -five (25) feet or twenty (20) percent of lot depth, whichever is less, but in no case less than fifteen (15) feet. Lowrise 3 and Lowrise 4 -- Twenty -five (25) feet or fifteen (15) percent of lot depth, whichever is less, but in no case less than fifteen (15) feet. Table 23.45.014 C Required Setback Between Facing Facades in Lowrise Zones Average Length of Facing Setback Between Minimum Facades, in Feet Facing Facades Setback (in Feet) (in Feet) 40 or less 10 10 41 to 60 15 10 61 to 80 20 10 81 to 100 25 10 101 to 150 30 10 151 or more 40 10 67 68 Attachment C Olympia Townhouse Regulations 18.64.020 - Purpose The purpose of this Chapter is to: A. Permit within Residential and Commercial Districts the development of townhouses which may be sold as individual lots and residences; B. Permit townhouse structures built to standards which are designed to include amenities usually associated with conventional single - family detached housing to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood; C. Promote affordable housing, efficient use of land and energy, and the availability of a variety of housing types in different locations; D. Promote infill development on physically suitable lands in residential areas, without adversely affecting adjacent development. 18.64.040 - Applications, review authority and use districts A. Applications. For all townhouse developments, applications for preliminary plat or short plat approval and any design review and land use approval shall be submitted simultaneously on forms provided by the City. Issuance of building and other permits shall be subject to conformance to the approved plans. In addition to standard submittal requirements for subdivision, design review and site plan review, townhouse applications shall contain that additional information specified by the Application Content Lists. (See OMC 18.77.010) B. Review Authority. 1. Nine (9) or fewer Townhouses. Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) may approve creation of nine (9) or fewer townhouse lots, subject to appeal provisions contained in the Olympia Municipal Code, Chapter 18.75 and the public notice requirements contained in Chapter 18.78. 2. Ten (10) or more Townhouses. The Hearing Examiner may approve creation of ten (10) or more Townhouse lots subject to Appeal requirements contained in the Olympia Municipal Code, Chapter 18.75 and the public notice requirements contained in Chapter 18.78. 18.64.060 - Platting requirements A. In R -4, R 4 -8, and R 6 -12 Districts a subdivision or short plat is required for all townhouse developments so that individual dwelling units are divided onto lots with the structural walls located on the lot lines. In other Districts the platting of each individual dwelling unit is optional. • • B. When a townhouse development is platted, construction of townhouse dwellings may commence prior to final plat approval, provided: 1. The proposed subdivision has received preliminary plat approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed as required in the Olympia Municipal Code Chapter 17.24, Olympia Platting and Subdivision Ordinance, to assure construction of required public improvements; 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor impair City enforcement of conditions of subdivision approval; 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued until final plat or final short plat approval is granted. C. No subdivision or short subdivision of a site containing previously constructed dwellings shall be allowed unless all common walls meet or are reconstructed to current building code and fire code requirements for separately owned subdivided townhouse units, and all other standards of this Chapter are met. D. Undersized lots may be used for individual townhouse dwelling units without meeting the density and lot area requirements of this Section, and without resubdividing, provided such lots were of record prior to the effective date of this Chapter; and provided, they also have the minimum lot width for townhouses. 18.64.080 - Development standards A. Maximum Site Area. The maximum site area for solely townhouse development in the R4, R 4 -8 or R 6 -12 District shall be four (4) acres. There is no maximum site area in other districts where townhouses are permitted. B. Units per Structure. 1. In R4, R 4 -8 and R 6 -12 Districts, each townhouse structure shall contain no more than four (4) individual dwelling units, and there shall be no more than one (1) builder per townhouse structure. 2. In all Districts except the R4, R 4 -8 and R 6 -12, requirements of the underlying district shall apply with regard to number of units per structure. C. Density and Lot Area. 1. Density. Each townhouse development shall be subject to density provisions contained in the underlying District. 2. Lot Size. See Table 4.04, Residential Development Standards. D. Building Coverage. Building coverage for a townhouse lot shall not exceed the following standards: 69 70 • • 1. R4 and R 4 - Districts: Sixty (60) percent building coverage; 2. R 6 - 12 District: Seventy (70) percent building coverage; 3. All other Districts: Same as the underlying district. E. Minimum Lot Width. Each individual townhouse lot shall have a minimum width as follows: 1. R4 and R 4 - Districts: Eighteen (18) feet; 2. R 6 - 12 Districts: Sixteen (16) feet; 3. All other Districts: See Tables 4.04 and 5.05. F. Setback Requirements. Setback requirements for front yards and for side yards of end dwelling units of townhouse structures shall be the same as the underlying district, except as follows: For townhouse projects within property zoned R4, R 4 -8 and R 6 -12 the side yard of each building shall be no less than ten (10) feet for buildings with three (3) or four (4) units and five (5) feet for those with two (2) units. G. Height. Same as the underlying district. H. Parking. Townhouse developments shall provide off - street parking pursuant to Chapter 18.38. I. Residential Design Review Criteria and Garage Width. Townhouse developments shall meet the Residential Design Criteria Section Chapter 18.175 and, if applicable, shall comply with garage placement and width provisions of 18.04.060(EE), provided that such standards shall be applied to the entirety of each building, and not to each dwelling unit. SeaTac Townhouse Standards • • Attachment D 15.19.710 Townhouse Standards Intent: The townhouse zone serves to buffer low- density residential neighborhoods from adjacent high- density residential or commercial developments. Height, setback, and massing standards promote development that fits well architecturally near existing single - family houses, while allowing densities that promote transit use, shared open space amenities, and a pedestrian orientation in a vibrant urban environment. The following design standards shall be applied to townhouse development in conjunction with all other applicable multi- family standards identified in this chapter. A. Bulk and Dimensional Standards (see also SMC 15.13.010 Standards Chart). ZONE T MINIM UM LOT AREA (SQ. FT.) 12 -24 d.u. /acre in City Center (14) 12 -16 d.u. /acre outside City Center (14) MIN FRONT YARD SETBACK (13) 0' /10' in City Center (16) 15' outside of City Center MIN SIDE YARD SETBACK (13) 0'/5' (16) MIN REAR YARD SETBAC K (13) 0'/10' (16) BUILDING LOT COVERAGE 55% MAX STRUCTUR E HEIGHT 35' (15) MIN LOT WIDTH 180' frontage along primary street (14) Up to thirty percent (30 %) increase in base density allowed with the incentives identified in SMC 15.35.730. (15) Up to forty (40) feet as specified in SMC 15.35.730. (16) May be zero (0) lot line with approved design providing property is not immediately adjacent to a UL zone. 1. Height. Townhouses shall have a maximum height of thirty -five (35) feet. An additional five (5) feet of height may be allowed if sub -grade or underground parking is provided for at least fifty percent (50 %) of the units. 2. Setbacks. The setbacks identified in SMC 15.13.010 shall apply to all townhouse development. 71 72 3. Density. • • a. Outside the City Center, townhouse density shall be a minimum of twelve (12) dwelling units per acre up to a maximum of sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre. Increased density may be allowed per SMC 15.19.600. b. Within the City Center, townhouse density shall be a maximum of twenty - four (24) units per acre. Increased density may be allowed per SMC 15.19.600. B. Design Standards. 1. Roof Line Variation. a. Roof pitch of at least six (6) feet of height for each twelve (12) linear feet of roof shall be required for all townhouse development. b. Additionally, at least two (2) of the following types of roof line variation shall be required for all townhouse development: i. Vertical offset in ridge line; ii. Gables; iii. False facades; iv. Exaggerated cornices; v. Dormers; vi. Vegetated terraces; vii. Other architectural features such as trellises, cornices, portals or porches. c. The maximum roof line length without variation shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. d. The minimum roof line variation length shall be four (4) feet for dormers and eight (8) feet for all other types of variations. C. Open Space. Open space shall be provided in townhouse development according to the following standards: 1. Two hundred (200) square feet of private open space shall be provided for each townhouse unit. Additionally, seventy -five (75) square feet of common open space shall be provided for developments of three (3) or more units. 2. For developments within the City Center, open space may be as specified above, or may be reduced to one hundred twenty (120) square feet of common open space per unit. I 15.19.700 Townhouse Zone • D. Off - street parking shall be provided in the rear of each unit via an alleyway or drive separate from the street. E. Front facades shall feature one -half (1/2) flight -up entries and front porches a minimum of sixty (60) square feet in size. F. Townhouse development shall be no less than one hundred and eighty (180) lineal feet as measured along the primary street frontage. (Ord. 01 -1031 § 1; Ord. 00 -1002 § 2) 15.19.400 Design of Surface and Structured Parking Purpose: These standards are intended to provide for safety and aesthetic considerations in surface and under- building parking within multi- family developments. (Ord. 01 -1031 § 1; Ord. 00 -1002 § 2) Purpose: This zone allows for townhouses, row houses or other common wall residential buildings for more than two (2) families. Townhouses offer several advantages over single - family detached houses: lower costs for land development, conservation of the land by using less land for a given number of houses and preserving open space, lower long -terms maintenance costs, energy efficiency, and increased security for both the house and the neighborhood. Townhouses, also known as row houses, are single- family attached units with common (or "party ") walls. Townhouses generally have narrow lots, ranging from twenty -two (22) to thirty -two (32) feet. Each unit has its own front door opening to the outdoors (usually to the street), and typically each house is a complete entity with its own utility connections. Although most townhouses have no side yards, they can have front and rear yards. In most instances, the land on which the townhouse is built, and any front and rear yard, is owned in fee by the resident; however, townhouses can also be structured as condominiums. (Ord. 01 -1031 § 1; Ord. 00 -1002 § 2) 73 74 Community Affairs and PO Committee Meeting Minutes S April 10, 2007 — Page 2 should not limit itself only to low -cost or "in- pond "solutions. He asked if we have looked at other potential problems besides phosphorous. Ms. Whiting said she has examined bacteria loads but has not found a problem. Also, she believes that the consultant will be looking at the best technical options for improving the pond water quality. Councilmember Carter expressed support for the study and the concept of the pond being a habitat rather than a place for people to swim. Mr. Pace offered to share the preliminary analysis in September before all of the analysis is completed. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO COW. As a related issue, the committee discussed the consultant selection for the Tukwila Pond Park design Phase I that was discussed at the April 9, 2007 Council meeting. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. c) Code Amendments • SEPA Nora Gierloff introduced this item. It would streamline the SEPA process and thresholds to eliminate review or shorten timelines for smaller projects when environmental impacts are unlikely. Ms. Gierloff referred to the table in the agenda report that compared Tukwila's thresholds to the State maximum and the proposed. Mr. Pace noted that most buildings would go through a design review process. Mr. Lancaster mentioned that with traffic concurrency and impact fee systems, we no longer rely on SEPA for mitigating traffic impacts like we once did. Councilmember Robertson asked if these changes would reduce our ability to control small infill developments on hillsides. Mr. Pace indicated that our sensitive areas ordinance addresses steep slope sites and tree permits and other regulations still apply. Councilmember Carter asked what would catch environmental issues like underground storage tanks? Mr. Pace and Ms. Whiting explained that owners have a responsibility to disclose and often the lenders require the analysis. Mr. Lancaster said that if an owner didn't disclose it, SEPA wouldn't have caught it anyway. Councilmember Robertson asked how these changes would have affected the City's process on a previous Fosterview development. Mr. Lancaster indicated that it would have had no effect on Fosterview, since that development included more than 9 dwelling units. He acknowledged it might eliminate a source of information that citizens are used to receiving on smaller residential developments (those between 4 and 9 units). He also noted that if any of the thresholds in the table are exceeded, SEPA is triggered, even if the proposed development is below any of the other thresholds.. Councilmember Robertson expressed support for the changes but also a desire to keep tools for the City to ensure the right kind of development. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL ON ALL CHANGES BUT KEEPING THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION THRESHOLD AT FOUR DWELLING UNITS INSTEAD OF THE PROPOSED NINE. FORWARD TO COW. • TOWNHOUSES Nora Gierloff introduced this item. It would change the Zoning Code to allow for development of fee simple townhomes. Some changes, such as minimum lot area, average lot width, setbacks and landscaping, would be necessary to allow fee simple townhouses since our development standards are based on a multi- family garden apartment style. Other changes would be necessary to enable a development pattern and density closer to the style of townhouses being built in other cities. One question is how prescriptive does Tukwila want to be on open space, such as requiring decks or onsite playgrounds, etc. Another issue is how to treat setbacks. The City's current tiered set -back standards may make development of fee simple economically infeasible. Councilmember Robertson expressed concern about the effects of eliminating the tiered set -back standards. Councilmember Carter emphasized that the design review process must address all sides of a building, not just the front. Ms. Gierloff discussed the current 50% development coverage limitation. Councilmember Robertson mentioned that using pervious surfaces (such as grasscrete) may be needed to ensure the development's environmental impact is not greater than development under today's standards. Councilmember Carter indicated this issue can be dealt with as the townhouse proposal goes through the approval process. She also expressed an interest in fence height being included in the design review process to minimize the amount of blank, high and solid walls facing the streets. FORWARD TO COW FOR DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION. • HOUSEKEEPING Nora Gierloff introduced this item on four amendments to the Zoning Code related to: permit processing, limitation on additions to homes that do not meet setbacks, retaining wall setbacks, and administrative variance for lot size. FORWARD TO PLANNING COMMISSION. <a `ITEM ACT ION .0 ; TAKENR.:;. Page ... 1. PRESENTATION(S) 2. BUSINESS AGENDA a.. Building height issue; a. Forward to 5/14 C.O.W. Pg. 1 Nora Gierloff, DCD Planning. Supervisor b. SAO Mitigation Ratio amendment; b. Forward to 5/14 C.O.W. Pg. 5 Nora Gierioff, DCD Planning Supervisor c. Mini Park Acquisition at 56XX S. 133rd; c. Forward to 5/14 C.O.W. Pg.13 Bruce Fletcher, Parks & Recreation Director d. Update on. Comp Plan amendments; d. Information only -- -- Jack Pace, Acting DCD Director no attachments e. First Quarter Reports e. Information only Pg.17 ,3. ANNOUNCEMENTS .4. MISCELLANEOUS City: of Tukwila Community Affairs and Parks Committee • .Pam Linder, Chair • Pam Carter • Dennis Robertson AGENDA Tuesday, April 24, 2007, Conference Room #3; 5 PM Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, May 8, 2007 Distribution: V. Jessop P. Carter K. Matej V. Griffin S. Kerslake P. Linder M. Miotke D. Robertson C. O'Flaherty Mayor Mullet J. Pace R. Berry • D. Speck E Boykan R. Still J. Cantu CC File (cover) B. Fletcher NGierloff] K. Fuhrer IS The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate those with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206-433-1800for assistance. hTEM .ACTION TO BE TAKEN Page 1. PRESENTATIONS) 2. BUSINESS. AGENDA a: Expanding Seattle Southside brand to include regional economic development; a. Information only Pg:1 Derek. Speck, Economic Development yAdministrator • b Tukwila Pond Water Quality Consultant , b. Forward to 4/23 C.0 W. and Pg.3 Contract 5/7 Regular Meeting. Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist c. Code Amendments: c. Refer to Planning Pg.15 - SEPA Commission for Townhouse recommendation. - Housekeeping Nora Gierloff, "Planning Supervisor . 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. MISCELLANEOUS • City of Tukwila Community Affairs and Parks Committee • Pam Linder, Chair • Pam Carter • Dennis Robertson AGENDA Tuesday, April 10, 2007, Conference Room #3; 5 PM Distribution: P. Carter V. Griffin P. Linder D. Robertson Mayor Mullet R. Berry E. Boykan 1 Cantu B. Fletcher K. Fuhrer V. Jessop K. Matej S. Kerslake S. Lancaster M. Miotke C. O'Flaherty J. Pace D. Speck R. Still S. Whiting NGierloff CC File (co■er) Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate those with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206- 433 -1800 for assistance. Type of Action Tu Thre Residential 4 dw ``z- Construction Commercial/Industrial 4,00C Construction parki Lots 40 pE Parking Landfills or Excavations 500 c To: Mayor Mullet Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director � ("� DATE: April 4, 2007 SUBJECT: Code Amendment — SEPA ISSUE Should the SEPA process and thresholds be streamlined to eliminate review or shorten timelines for smaller projects when environmental impacts are unlikely? BACKGROUND The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that a standard checklist be filled out by a project proponent to identify the environmental impacts of certain actions. Actions include grading, dredging, paving, construction or demolition of buildings, and adoption or revision of most plans, policies or regulations by a government agency. The intent is to identify environmental impacts that would otherwise "fall through the cracks" and provide a mechanism for public review and mitigation. Jurisdictions have flexibility in setting the thresholds that trigger SEPA review up to the maximum level allowed by the State. Jurisdictions can also take advantage of an optional SEPA process that allows them to identify projects where significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely and _D(6-- combine the comment period on that determination with the notice of application comment period for the underlying permit. (-NE- e NG Q: \CODEAMND \4- 10CAP_SEPA.DOC M INFORMATION MEMORANDU kwila's shold elling units sf and 20 Z g spaces r king spaces ubic yards loci Maximum Threshold 20 dwelling units 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces 40 parkin. spaces 500 cubic yards Proposed Thresholds 9 dwelling units 12,000 sf and 40 ?' parking spaces 40 parking spaces 500 cubic yards Page 1 04/04/2007 1:41:00 PM 15 16 • ANALYSIS Tukwila has a comprehensive set of regulations to control negative impacts in the following areas: 1. Traffic 2. Sensitive Areas (wetlands, watercourses, slopes, liquefaction areas, coal mine hazards) 3. Shorelines 4. Stormwater 5. Sewer and Water Concurrency 6. Design Review. Because these standards are already in place we do not often have to rely on SEPA to impose mitigation conditions. Raising the threshold for number of new dwelling units to o 70 would match the threshold for subdivision review. Raising the threshold for new buildings in commercial/industrial zones to 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces would streamline review of smaller projects. As an example the Claim Jumper restaurant is approximately 12,000 sf. yam. (-4.:_/ re <1 rer Very few development proposals require a full environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze impacts and develop mitigation measures. For the vast majority of development in Tukwila the City issues either a determination of non - significance (DNS) or a mitigated determination of non - significance (MDNS) after review of the SEPA checklist. IL The City is authorized under WAS 197 -11 -355 to make this determination early in the review process and combine the SEPA comment period with that of the underlying permit, saving about two weeks of processing time. PROPOSAL Raise the flexible thresholds for residential, commercial and industrial new construction as shown on the table above. Take advantage of the optional DNS process that allows for concurrent SEPA and project comment periods. RECOMMENDATION Forward the proposal to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and development of specific code amendments. NG Q: \CODEAMND\4- 10CAP_SEPA.DOC Page 2 04/04/2007 1:41:00 PM Q: \CODEAMND\2007AmendCAP.DOC • • INFORMATIONMEMORAND TO: Mayor Mullet Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director DATE: April 4, 2007 SUBJECT: Code Amendments — Housekeeping BACKGROUND Staff has grouped four amendments to the Zoning Code together for consideration. The topics range from minor housekeeping or clarification to policy decisions about allowed uses and development standards. Each proposed amendment has a brief explanation followed by a list of options. Staffs recommended option is in bold. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS A. Permit Processing Housekeeping There are a few decisions called out in the body of the Zoning Code that are not listed in the table at TMC 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications. Add to the Type 2 Decisions section: 18.52.020 Special Permission landscape approvals 18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080 Waiver of certain setback and landscape standards in the Commercial Redevelopment Area 18.50.130 Structures over public R -O -W 18.56.140 Variance from Parking Standards less than 10% Add to the Type 4 Decisions section: 18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080 Waiver of certain setback and landscape standards in the Commercial Redevelopment Area Options: 1. Address these housekeeping item .. a different time 2. Forward the corrections tot P Page 1 21 B. Limitation on Additions to Homes that Do Not meet Setbacks TMC 18.70.040 (6) allows "single family structures in single or multiple family zone districts, which have legally non - conforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand along the existing building line(s) if the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the property line is not reduced." This provision has been used in ways that significantly increase the area of non - conformity and impact upon the neighboring property. Staff suggests that such expansions be limited to the ground floor and the area of the new intrusion into the setback not exceed 50% of the area of the current intrusion. Options: 1. Decline to consider the proposal 2. Forward the language change to th 3. Recommend changes to the proposal be ore forwarding it to the PC a) Allow two or three story additions within the setback b) Select a different percentage of increase c) Other changes C. Retaining Wall Setbacks There are several different standards for whether retaining walls can be located in required setbacks which leads to confusion and in some cases unusable yards. The Zoning Code defines yard as: 18.06.945 Yard "Yard" means a required open space unoccupied and unobstructed by any structure or portion of a structure from 30 inches above the general ground level of the graded lot upward. Structure is defined as: 18.06.800 Structure "Structure" means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, but excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized. Not included are residential fences, retaining walls less than three feet in height, rockeries and similar improvements of minor character. The building code allows most rockeries and retaining walls up to 4' high without a permit, which many people assume is the trigger for meeting setbacks. Rockeries are rarely allowed to retain more than 4 feet of earth. While the intent may have been to prevent a neighbor from having to look at a tall retaining wall on the property line it sometimes has the effect of creating a yard that is =maintained and unusable to the property owner because of the grade separation. These rules do not provide for the situations where a retaining wall is perpendicular to a property 2 2 Q: \CODEANIND\2007AmendCAP.DOC Page 2 line across two or more lots or alongside a driveway when the garage is built into the basement of a house on a hillside. Staff suggests that retaining walls and rockeries with up to 4 feet of exposed face be allowed in yards to match building code requirements. This could be increased in special circumstances if the property in question is on the lower side is needed retaining wall, R O if W improvements.s the lots on both sides of the property line or if the Options: 1. Retain the existing definitions 2. Forward the pro al to change the definition of structure and add additional language to th L � 3. Recommend changes to the proposal before forwarding it to the PC a) Make additional distinctions between rockeries and retaining walls b) Other changes D. Administrative Variance for Lot Size The minimum lot size in Low Density Residential, Tukwila's single family zone, is 6,500 sf. There are areas of the City that were platted prior to current zoning regulations with 3,000 sf lots. This means that a property owner would have to aggregate five or more lots totaling 15,000 sf in order to subdivide. Staff proposes to create an administrative variance to the DCD Director for reductions in lot size of up to 500sf per lot for up to two lots to streamline the process for lots that are just under the threshold for subdivision. Requests for greater reductions would still require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Proposed criteria for this variance include: 1) The current or past property owner has not reduced the area of the lot in question by BLA, short plat or sale of adjacent lots under common ownership after the effective date of Ord. 2097. Ai . L ✓ t>5 ` �- cam°; ti^ G�� 2) The new lots would be able to meet all other development standards including setbacks, lot width, maximum building footprint and parking. 3) Lots that have received a reduction in size through the PRD process are not eligible for further reductions through this variance process. 4) The variance is compatible with and meets the spirit of the comprehensive plan and will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and the rights of the neighboring property owners. 5) The variance permitted is the minimum variance necessary. 6) The variance is necessary to relieve a material hardship which cannot be relieved by any other means. 7) The granting of the variance will not cause a substantial detrimental effect to the public interest. A 1--- /\n G.. /1 J I C .i '1 �� V (. a, A ` O A . Q: \CODEAMND\200 • 1 Page 3 23 Options: 2 4 Q:\CODDAMND\2007AmendCAP.DOC 1) Decline to consider these changes 2) and the proposal to create an administrative variance for lot size to the PC 3) ommend changes to the proposal before forwarding it to the PC a) Allow a variance of up to 10% b) Other changes REQUESTED ACTION Select an alternative for each of the above proposals and either forward the proposal to the Planning Commission for consideration, decline to consider the change or hold it back for further refinement. Page 4 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Mullet Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director DATE: February 28, 2007 SUBJECT: Townhouse Code Amendment Proposal ISSUE Should the Zoning Code be changed to allow for development of fee simple townhomes? Due to lot size and setback requirements only condominiums or apartments are allowed in our multi - family zones. BACKGROUND DCD has periodically been approached by developers interested in building townhomes. They think that there is a stronger market for this type of housing in fee simple ownership on individual lots rather than as a condominium. While our codes allow for townhomes to be built if they are owned as condominiums, the insurance requirements for condominiums make many small projects unfeasible. The Council may be interested in expanding the range of ownership multi - family options available in Tukwila. ANALYSIS The development standards in Tukwila's multi - family zones are based on a garden apartment model with communal open space. The following areas of the Zoning Code would require amendments in order to allow for construction of townhouses with private yards on individual platted lots. • Minimum Lot Area Though the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone allows for one unit per 3,000 sf of lot area there is a minimum lot size of 8,000 sf. Similarly in High Density Residential (HDR) one unit is allowed for every 2,000 sf of lot area but the minimum lot size is 9,600 sf. Townhomes can be developed at these densities, but the minimum lot size requirements would need to be eliminated or applied to the project as a whole rather than the individual house lots. • Average Lot Width The minimum lot width of 60 feet required in the MDR and HDR zones would need to be eliminated or applied to the project as a whole. Most townhouse lots are between 15 and 25 feet in width and 80 to 100 feet in depth. NG Page 1 02/27/2007 11:52:00 AM Q: \Townhouses \CAP_Townhouse.DOC • Setbacks The side setbacks would need to be eliminated, at least for interior units. The setbacks in MDR and HDR also increase for second, third and floors. Since townhomes are almost always two to four stories in height these tiered setbacks may make development difficult on small lots. • Landscape The side yard landscape requirement would need to be eliminated, at least for interior units. The remaining front, second front, side and rear landscape requirements would likely need to be modified, unless they were applied to the site as a whole, rather than each individual lot. • Development Coverage The development coverage limitation of 50% in MDR and HDR requires that half of the property be kept as landscape, pedestrian or recreation area. That would be difficult to meet with the townhouse development pattern given the parking and fire access requirements. A building footprint limitation, similar that in the LDR zone, would be workable. • Recreation Space The MDR and HDR zones require 400 square feet of recreation space per unit with a 1,000 sq foot minimum. The space per unit may be feasible as a combination of yards and balconies, however the restriction that setback areas may not count toward this total (TMC 18.52.060) would not. Since townhomes function more like single family residences than apartment or condominium complexes the requirement for communal children's play areas would not be appropriate. PROPOSAL Subdivision The City of Seattle's code provides a useful model for how to handle townhouse development, see Attachment A. There are sections in both their short plat and subdivision standards that allow townhouse and cottage developments to be processed similarly to a binding site plan. This applies lot size, lot width, setback and landscape standards to the original "parent" parcel rather than the "unit" lots that contain the individual townhomes. Other than that change their platting process follows the standard procedure with preliminary approval, infrastructure construction, final approval and then building permit. Some cities allow the buildings to be constructed prior to final approval along with the rest of the site improvements so that the lot lines can be drawn accurately through the existing common walls. If the buildings are constructed after the plat sometimes field conditions require boundary line adjustments to meet the as built conditions. Setbacks Even if the setback requirements were only applied to the parent lot the tiered setbacks in the MDR and HDR zones have been identified by developers as difficult for townhouse development. Unlike an apartment building where a smaller unit could be substituted to create a larger setback on the second or third floor, a townhouse may only be 20 feet wide NG Page 2 02/27/2007 11:52:00 AM Q:\Townhouses\CAP_Townhouse.DOC so an additional 10' of setback would compromise the usability of that floor. Also townhouses would typically only have bedrooms on the third level, unlike apartment buildings, so they may be less intrusive on neighbors. Development Coverage It is not possible to achieve zoned density with a townhouse product under the 50% impervious surface limitation. A 50 -60% building footprint limitation is common in other jurisdictions. Recreation Space Other codes require between 200 and 300 square feet of recreation space per unit with some granting 2 for 1 credit for balconies and patios. In addition setback areas that are part of private open space for an individual unit should be allowed to count toward the recreation space requirement. Since the small private yards are generally fenced some thought should be given to limiting the height of fences, especially along street frontages. Design Review The multi - family Design Review Criteria in the Zoning Code will work for townhouse development. The optional Multi- Family Design Guidelines booklet has some sections that would not be applicable, such as the child play area guidelines. Staff proposes that projects following the short subdivision process (up to 9 lots) be subject to administrative design review and projects requiring a subdivision be subject to public hearing design review. RECOMMENDATION Forward the proposal to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and development of specific code amendments. Attachments: A. Selected Townhouse Regulations from the Seattle Municipal Code B. Selected Townhouse Regulations from the SeaTac Municipal Code C. Selected Townhouse Regulations from the Olympia Municipal Code NG Page 3 02/27/2007 11:52:00 AM Q:\Townhouses\CAP_Townhouse.DOC Seattle Townhouse Regulations "Lot, parent" means the initial lot from which unit lots are subdivided for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, clustered housing in Single- family, Residential Small Lot and Lowrise zones, single - family residences in Lowrise zones, or any combination of the above types of residential development. "Lot, unit" means one (1) of the individual lots created from the subdivision of a parent lot for the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, clustered housing in Single - family, Residential Small Lot and Lowrise zones, single- family residences in Lowrise zones, or any combination of the above types of residential development. "Short subdivision" means the division or redivision of land into nine (9) or fewer lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease, development or financing, and shall include all resubdivision of previously platted land and properties divided for the purpose of sale or lease of townhouse units. "Townhouse" means a form of ground- related housing in which individual dwelling units are attached along at least one (1) common wall to at least one (1) other dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit occupies space from the ground to the roof and has direct access to private open space. No portion of a unit may occupy space above or below another unit, except that townhouse units may be constructed over a common shared parking garage, provided the garage is underground. SMC 23.22.062 Unit lot subdivisions — Preliminary Plat. A. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the unit subdivision of land for townhouses, cottage housing developments, residential cluster developments, and single - family dwelling units in zones where such uses are permitted. B. Except for any site for which a permit has been issued pursuant to Section 23.44.041= for a detached accessory dwelling unit, sites developed or proposed to be developed with dwelling units listed in subsection A above may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. As a result of the subdivision, development on individual unit lots may be nonconforming as to some or all of the development standards based on analysis of the individual unit lot, except that any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. C. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. D. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common courtyard open spaces Attachment A for cottage housing), and other similar features, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. E. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. (Ord. 122190 , Section 1„ 2006; Ord. 119618 Section 1, 1999; Ord. 119239 Section 1, 1998.) SMC 23.24.045 Unit lot subdivisions — Short Plats. A. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the unit subdivision of land for townhouses, cottage housing developments, residential cluster developments, and single- family dwelling units in zones where such uses are permitted. B. Except for any site for which a permit has been issued pursuant to Section 23.44.041I. for a detached accessory dwelling unit, sites developed or proposed to be developed with dwelling units listed in subsection A above may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit application is vested. As a result of the subdivision, development on individual unit lots may be nonconforming as to some or all of the development standards based on analysis of the individual unit lot, except that any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves. C. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot. D. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common courtyard open space for cottage housing), and other similar features, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. E. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. F. The facts that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of Records and Elections. (Ord. 122190 , Section 2, 2006; Ord. 119618 Section 2, 1999; Ord. 119239 Section 4, 1998; Ord. 118794 Section 6, 1997: Ord. 118414 Section 3, 1996: Ord. 117430 Section 3, 1994.) SMC 23.45.010 Lot coverage -- Lowrise zones. A. Except as provided in subsection C of this section, the maximum lot coverage permitted for principal and accessory structures shall not exceed the following limits: 1. For townhouses, the following lot coverage limits shall apply: Lowrise duplex/Triplex -- Forty-five (45) percent. Lowrise 1 -- Fifty (50) percent. Lowrise 2 -- Fifty (50) percent. Lowrise 3 -- Fifty (50) percent. Lowrise 4 -- Fifty (50) percent. SMC 23.45.012 Modulation requirements — Lowrise zones. A. Front Facades. 1. Modulation shall be required if the front facade width exceeds thirty (30) feet with no principal entrance facing the street, or forty (40) feet with a principal entrance facing the street. 2. For terraced housing, only the portion of the front facade closest to the street is required to be modulated. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 AM ) B. Side Facades. On corner lots, side facades which face the street shall be modulated if greater than forty (40) feet in width for ground - related housing, and thirty (30) feet in width for apartments. Modulation shall not be required for the side facades of terraced housing. C. Interior Facades. Within a cluster development all interior facades wider than forty (40) feet shall be modulated according to the standards of subsection D of Section 23.45.012, provided that the maximum modulation width shall be forty (40) feet. Perimeter facades shall follow standard development requirements. D. Modulation Standards. 1. Lowrise Duplex/Triplex and Lowrise 1 Zones. a. Minimum Depth of Modulation. (1) The minimum depth of modulation shall be four (4) feet. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 BSI ) (2) When balconies are part of the modulation and have a minimum dimension of at least six (6) feet and a minimum area of at least sixty (60) square feet, the minimum depth of modulation shall be two (2) feet. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 ) b. The minimum width of modulation shall be five (5) feet. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 B!i ) c. Maximum Width of Modulation. The modulation width shall emphasize the identity of individual units, but shall not be greater than thirty (30) feet. For units located one (1) above the other, the individuality of the units shall be emphasized through the location of driveways, entrances, walkways and open spaces. 2. Lowrise 2, Lowrise 3 and Lowrise 4 Zones. a. Minimum Depth of Modulation. (1) The minimum depth of modulation shall be four (4) feet (see Exhibit 23.45.012 B® in Lowrise 2 and Lowrise 3 zones and for townhouses in Lowrise 4 zones, and eight (8) feet for apartments in Lowrise 4 zones. (2) When balconies are part of the modulation and have a minimum dimension of at least six (6) feet and a minimum area of at least sixty (60) square feet, the minimum depth of modulation shall be two (2) feet. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 Cii ) b. The minimum width of modulation shall be five (5) feet. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 BE ) c. Maximum Width of Modulation. (1) The maximum width of modulation shall be thirty (30) feet. (2) Exceptions to Maximum Width of Modulation in Lowrise 2, Lowrise 3 and Lowrise 4 Zones. i. When facades provide greater depth of modulation than required by subsection D1 of this section, then for every additional full foot of modulation depth, the width of modulation may be increased by two and one -half (2 1/2) feet, to a maximum width of forty (40) feet in Lowrise 2 zones and forty -five (45) feet in Lowrise 3 and Lowrise 4 zones. Subsection B of Section 23.86.002, measurements, shall not apply. ii. The maximum width of modulation may be increased when facades are set back from the lot line further than the required setback, according to the following guideline: The width of modulation of such a facade shall be permitted to exceed thirty (30) feet by one (1) foot for every foot of facade setback beyond the required setback. This provision shall not be combined with the provisions of subsection D2c(2)i, nor shall it permit facades to exceed forty -five (45) feet in width without modulation. 3. In Lowrise 1, Lowrise 2, Lowrise 3 and Lowrise 4 zones required modulation may start a maximum of ten (10) feet above existing grade, and shall be continued up to the roof. In Lowrise Duplex/Triplex zones modulation shall extend from the ground to the roof except for weather protection coverings such as awnings. (Ord. 120117 Section 10, 2000; Ord. 114888 Section 6, 1989; Ord. 114887 Section 4(part), 1989.) SMC 23.45.014 Setback requirements -- Lowrise zones. A. Front Setback. 3. Townhouses. a. Portions of a structure may project into the required front setback, as long as the average distance from the front property line to the structure satisfies the minimum front setback requirement. b. No portion of a structure shall be closer to the front property line than five (5) feet. ZONE MINIM UM LOT AREA (SQ. FT.) MIN FRONT YARD SETBACK (13) MIN SIDE YARD SETBACK (13) MIN REAR YARD SETBAC K (13) BUILDING LOT COVERAGE MAX STRUCTUR E HEIGHT MIN LOT WIDTH T 12 -24 d.u. /acre in City Center (14) 12-16 d.u./acre outside City Center (14) 0710' in City Center (16) 15' outside of City Center 0'/5' (16) 0' /10' (16) ° 55 /° 35' (15) 180' frontage along primary street SeaTac Townhouse Standards 15.19.710 Townhouse Standards Intent: The townhouse zone serves to buffer low - density residential neighborhoods from adjacent high- density residential or commercial developments. Height, setback, and massing standards promote development that fits well architecturally near existing single - family houses, while allowing densities that promote transit use, shared open space amenities, and a pedestrian orientation in a vibrant urban environment. The following design standards shall be applied to townhouse development in conjunction with all other applicable multi- family standards identified in this chapter. A. Bulk and Dimensional Standards (see also SMC 15.13.010 Standards Chart). (14) Up to thirty percent (30 %) increase in base density allowed with the incentives identified in SMC 15.35.730. (15) Up to forty (40) feet as specified in SMC 15.35.730. (16) May be zero (0) lot line with approved design providing property is not immediately adjacent to a UL zone. 1. Height. Townhouses shall have a maximum height of thirty -five (35) feet. An additional five (5) feet of height may be allowed if sub -grade or underground parking is provided for at least fifty percent (50 %) of the units. 2. Setbacks. The setbacks identified in SMC 15.13.010 shall apply to all townhouse development. Attachment B 3. Density. a. Outside the City Center, townhouse density shall be a minimum of twelve (12) dwelling units per acre up to a maximum of sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre. Increased density may be allowed per SMC 15.19.600. b. Within the City Center, townhouse density shall be a maximum of twenty - four (24) units per acre. Increased density may be allowed per SMC 15.19.600. B. Design Standards. 1. Roof Line Variation. a. Roof pitch of at least six (6) feet of height for each twelve (12) linear feet of roof shall be required for all townhouse development. b. Additionally, at least two (2) of the following types of roof line variation shall be required for all townhouse development: i. Vertical offset in ridge line; ii. Gables; iii. False facades; iv. Exaggerated cornices; v. Dormers; vi. Vegetated terraces; vii. Other architectural features such as trellises, cornices, portals or porches. c. The maximum roof line length without variation shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. d. The minimum roof line variation length shall be four (4) feet for dormers and eight (8) feet for all other types of variations. C. Open Space. Open space shall be provided in townhouse development according to the following standards: 1. Two hundred (200) square feet of private open space shall be provided for each townhouse unit. Additionally, seventy -five (75) square feet of common open space shall be provided for developments of three (3) or more units. 2. For developments within the City Center, open space may be as specified above, or may be reduced to one hundred twenty (120) square feet of common open space per unit. D. Off - street parking shall be provided in the rear of each unit via an alleyway or drive separate from the street. E. Front facades shall feature one -half (1/2) flight -up entries and front porches a minimum of sixty (60) square feet in size. F. Townhouse development shall be no less than one hundred and eighty (180) lineal feet as measured along the primary street frontage. (Ord. 01 -1031 § 1; Ord. 00 -1002 § 2) 15.19.400 Design of Surface and Structured Parking Purpose: These standards are intended to provide for safety and aesthetic considerations in surface and under - building parking within multi - family developments. (Ord. 01 -1031 § 1; Ord. 00 -1002 § 2) 15.19.700 Townhouse Zone Purpose: This zone allows for townhouses, row houses or other common wall residential buildings for more than two (2) families. Townhouses offer several advantages over single - family detached houses: lower costs for land development, conservation of the land by using less land for a given number of houses and preserving open space, lower long -terms maintenance costs, energy efficiency, and increased security for both the house and the neighborhood. Townhouses, also known as row houses, are single- family attached units with common (or "party") walls. Townhouses generally have narrow lots, ranging from twenty-two (22) to thirty-two (32) feet. Each unit has its own front door opening to the outdoors (usually to the street), and typically each house is a complete entity with its own utility connections. Although most townhouses have no side yards, they can have front and rear yards. In most instances, the land on which the townhouse is built, and any front and rear yard, is owned in fee by the resident; however, townhouses can also be structured as condominiums. (Ord. 01 -1031 § 1; Ord. 00 -1002 § 2) Olympia Townhouse Regulations 18.64.020 - Purpose The purpose of this Chapter is to: A. Permit within Residential and Commercial Districts the development of townhouses which may be sold as individual lots and residences; B. Permit townhouse structures built to standards which are designed to include amenities usually associated with conventional single - family detached housing to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood; C. Promote affordable housing, efficient use of land and energy, and the availability of a variety of housing types in different locations; D. Promote infill development on physically suitable lands in residential areas, without adversely affecting adjacent development. 18.64.040 - Applications, review authority and use districts A. Applications. For all townhouse developments, applications for preliminary plat or short plat approval and any design review and land use approval shall be submitted simultaneously on forms provided by the City. Issuance of building and other permits shall be subject to conformance to the approved plans. In addition to standard submittal requirements for subdivision, design review and site plan review, townhouse applications shall contain that additional information specified by the Application Content Lists. (See OMC 18.77.010) B. Review Authority. 1. Nine (9) or fewer Townhouses. Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) may approve creation of nine (9) or fewer townhouse lots, subject to appeal provisions contained in the Olympia Municipal Code, Chapter 18.75 and the public notice requirements contained in Chapter 18.78. 2. Ten (10) or more Townhouses. The Hearing Examiner may approve creation of ten (10) or more Townhouse lots subject to Appeal requirements contained in the Olympia Municipal Code, Chapter 18.75 and the public notice requirements contained in Chapter 18.78. 18.64.060 - Platting requirements A. In R -4, R 4 -8, and R 6 -12 Districts a subdivision or short plat is required for all townhouse developments so that individual dwelling units are divided onto lots with the structural walls located on the lot lines. In other Districts the platting of each individual dwelling unit is optional. Attachment C B. When a townhouse development is platted, construction of townhouse dwellings may commence prior to final plat approval, provided: 1. The proposed subdivision has received preliminary plat approval, and the necessary financial sureties have been filed as required in the Olympia Municipal Code Chapter 17.24, Olympia Platting and Subdivision Ordinance, to assure construction of required public improvements; 2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor impair City enforcement of conditions of subdivision approval; 3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued until final plat or final short plat approval is granted. C. No subdivision or short subdivision of a site containing previously constructed dwellings shall be allowed unless all common walls meet or are reconstructed to current building code and fire code requirements for separately owned subdivided townhouse units, and all other standards of this Chapter are met. D. Undersized lots may be used for individual townhouse dwelling units without meeting the density and lot area requirements of this Section, and without resubdividing, provided such lots were of record prior to the effective date of this Chapter; and provided, they also have the minimum lot width for townhouses. 18.64.080 - Development standards A. Maximum Site Area. The maximum site area for solely townhouse development in the R4, R 4 -8 or R 6 -12 District shall be four (4) acres. There is no maximum site area in other districts where townhouses are permitted. B. Units per Structure. 1. In R4, R 4 -8 and R 6 -12 Districts, each townhouse structure shall contain no more than four (4) individual dwelling units, and there shall be no more than one (1) builder per townhouse structure. 2. In all Districts except the R4, R 4 -8 and R 6 -12, requirements of the underlying district shall apply with regard to number of units per structure. C. Density and Lot Area. 1. Density. Each townhouse development shall be subject to density provisions contained in the underlying District. 2. Lot Size. See Table 4.04, Residential Development Standards. D. Building Coverage. Building coverage for a townhouse lot shall not exceed the following standards: 1. R4 and R 4 - Districts: Sixty (60) percent building coverage; 2. R 6 - 12 District: Seventy (70) percent building coverage; 3. All other Districts: Same as the underlying district. E. Minimum Lot Width. Each individual townhouse lot shall have a minimum width as follows: 1. R4 and R 4 - Districts: Eighteen (18) feet; 2. R 6 - 12 Districts: Sixteen (16) feet; 3. All other Districts: See Tables 4.04 and 5.05. F. Setback Requirements. Setback requirements for front yards and for side yards of end dwelling units of townhouse structures shall be the same as the underlying district, except as follows: For townhouse projects within property zoned R4, R 4 -8 and R 6 -12 the side yard of each building shall be no less than ten (10) feet for buildings with three (3) or four (4) units and five (5) feet for those with two (2) units. G. Height. Same as the underlying district. H. Parking. Townhouse developments shall provide off - street parking pursuant to Chapter 18.38. I. Residential Design Review Criteria and Garage Width. Townhouse developments shall meet the Residential Design Criteria Section Chapter 18.175 and, if applicable, shall comply with garage placement and width provisions of 18.04.060(EE), provided that such standards shall be applied to the entirety of each building, and not to each dwelling unit. 18.175.020 - Neighborhood Scale and Character A. REQUIREMENT: Minimize the appearance of building scale differences between proposed dwelling unit(s) and existing neighborhood residential units. Reflect the architectural character of neighboring residences (within 300' on the same street) through use of related building features. On narrow lots (30 feet wide or less), the average height of the adjacent residences shall not be exceeded unless the apparent scale of the proposed building is reduced through modulation. B. GUIDELINES: 1. Step the roof on the building perimeter segments to transition between a proposed taller building and an existing residential structure. 2. Replicate or approximate roof forms and pitch found on existing residential structures in the neighborhood. 3. Use window patterns and proportions similar to those on existing residential structures in the neighborhood. 4. Use building facade materials similar to those used on existing residential buildings in the neighborhood. 5. Maintain a consistent relationship to the street (i.e., building setbacks and entryways) as existing buildings. FIGURE 18.175.020 18.175.030 - Building Orientation and Entries A. REQUIREMENT: Provide a clearly defined building or courtyard entry from the primary street. B. GUIDELINES: 1. Use distinctive architectural elements and materials to indicate the entry. 2. Define the transition space from the sidewalk to the entry with a terrace, plaza, or landscaped area. 3. Avoid the use of exterior stairways to second stories that are visible from the street. 4. Provide porches, balconies, and covered entries. FIGURE 18.175.030 -A FIGURE 18.175.030 -B 18.175.040 - Building Modulation and Articulation A. REQUIREMENT: Use building and roof modulation and articulation to reduce the appearance of large building masses. B. GUIDELINES: 1. Modulate the building facade with features such as porches, balconies, building wall relief, and bay windows. 2. Provide roof elements such as gables, eyebrow roof forms or dormers. 3. Incorporate prominent cornice, soffit, or fascia details that emphasize the top of the building. 4. Provide prominent roof overhangs. 5. Articulate the roof with rafter tails and brackets. 18.175.050 - Windows A. REQUIREMENT: Provide relief, detail, and visual rhythm on the facade with well - proportioned windows. B. GUIDELINES: 1. Use window patterns, proportions, and orientation consistent with neighboring residences. 2. Use multiple -pane windows. FIGURE 18.175.040 3. Provide windows that are designed to create shadows (either deeply recessed or protruding). 4. Use visually significant window elements (i.e. frame dimensions, lintels, casings, sills, and trim). 5. Locate windows so that the occupants from one residence cannot look directly into an adjacent residence. 18.175.060 - Garage Design FIGURE 18.175.050 A. REQUIREMENT: Design garages and carports so that they do not dominate the dwelling's street facade. B. GUIDELINES: 1. Locate garages and carports behind residences, stepped back from the building's street facade, or provide a side entry (perpendicular to the street). 2. Design driveways to be as narrow as possible and/or shared where possible to minimize impervious surface and to minimize disruption of the sidewalk and planting strip by curb cuts. 3. Incorporate windows into garage sidewalls whenever they face the street so that they appear to contain habitable space. 4. Incorporate garage door elements which reduce the apparent size of the doors, such as panels and windows. 5. Use materials and colors that match the residence. FIGURE 18.175.060 -A FIGURE 18.175.060 -B 18.175.070 - Material and Colors A. REQUIREMENT: Use building materials with texture and pattern and a high level of quality and detailing. Reserve brightly saturated colors for accent or trim features. B. GUIDELINES: 1. Use materials such as horizontal lap siding, shingles, brick, stone, stucco, ceramic or terra cotta tile. 2. When remodeling or adding to an existing building, use materials and colors that preserve or enhance the character of the original building. FIGURE 18.175.070 -A FIGURE 18.175.070 -B To: Mayor Mullet Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director DATE: April 4, 2007 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendment — Townhouse ISSUES Should the Zoning Code be changed to allow for development of fee simple townhomes? Due to lot size and setback requirements only condominiums or apartments are allowed in our multi - family zones, though they could be built in townhouse form. Because townhouses are also typically significantly larger than stacked apartments or condominiums unless the bulk and coverage requirements in the current code were changed fewer townhouse units could be built on a given site. BACKGROUND DCD has periodically been approached by developers interested in building townhomes. They think that there is a stronger market for this type of housing in fee simple ownership on individual lots rather than as a condominium. While our codes allow for townhomes to be built if they are owned as condominiums, the insurance requirements for condominiums make many small projects unfeasible. The Council may be interested in expanding the range of ownership multi - family options available in Tukwila. ANALYSIS Due to Tukwila's prevailing pattern of narrow, deep lots in most infill situations townhouses would be perpendicular to the street, rather than the traditional row house with stoops along the street and alley access behind Below is an example of a typical market driven design for an 80' x 240' infill lot in Tukwila. NG Q:\ Townhouses \4- 10CAP_Townhouse.DOC INFORMATION MEMORANDUM Page 1 04/04/2007 1:40:00 PM 17 18 The development standards in Tukwila's multi - family zones are based on a garden apartment model with communal open space. Many of these standards would be in conflict with the townhouse building type. The following areas of the Zoning Code would require amendments in order to allow for construction of townhouses with private yards on individual platted lots. • Minimum Lot Area Though the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone allows for one unit per 3,000 sf of lot area there is a minimum lot size of 8,000 sf. Similarly in High Density Residential (HDR) one unit is allowed for every 2,000 sf of lot area but the minimum lot size is 9,600 sf. Townhomes can be developed at these densities, but the minimum lot size requirements would need to be eliminated or applied to the project as a whole rather than the individual house lots. • Average Lot Width The minimum lot width of 60 feet required in the MDR and HDR zones would need to be eliminated or applied to the project as a whole. Most townhouse lots are between 15 and 25 feet in width and 80 to 100 feet in depth. • Setbacks The side setbacks would need to be eliminated for interior units and while a minimum separation between townhouse buildings should be required the 40 feet required by code (20' on either side of the property line for the 2nd and 3 `d story) is excessive. • Landscape The side yard landscape requirement would need to be eliminated for interior units though there should be some landscape requirement between buildings. In addition modifications to the following areas of the code would allow for a development pattern and density closer to what is being built elsewhere. If we did not change these bulk and coverage requirements the market might continue to favor apartment development. • Setbacks The front, second front side and rear setbacks in MDR and HDR all increase for second and third floors. Since townhomes are almost always two to four stories in height these tiered setbacks may make development difficult on small lots even if they were applied to the project as a whole. • Landscape There would need to be some flexibility with the front, second front, side and rear landscape requirements even if they were applied to the site as a whole, rather than each individual lot. • Development Coverage The development coverage limitation of 50% in MDR and HDR requires that half of the property be kept as landscape, pedestrian or recreation area. That would be difficult to meet at zoned densities with the typical townhouse development pattern given the parking and fire access requirements. A building footprint limitation, similar that in the LDR zone, would be workable. • Recreation Space The MDR and HDR zones require 400 square feet of recreation space per unit with a 1,000 sq foot minimum. The space per unit may be feasible as a combination of yards and balconies, however the restriction that setback areas NG Page 2 04/04/2007 1:40:00 PM Q:\ Townhouses \4- 10CAP_Townhouse.DOC PROPOSAL may not count toward this total (TMC 18.52.060) would not. Since townhomes function more like single family residences than apartment or condominium complexes the requirement for communal children's play areas would not be appropriate. Subdivision One approach for how to handle this type of development is to treat townhouse and cottage projects similarly to a binding site plan. This would apply lot size, lot width, setback and landscape standards to the original "parent" parcel rather than the "unit" lots that contain the individual townhomes. This would result in the same treatment adjacent to the neighboring properties while allowing a different ownership pattern. Other than that change both the short plat and subdivision platting process could follow the (tandard procedure with preliminary approval, infrastructure construction, final approval and then building permit. Some cities allow the buildings to be constructed prior to final approval along with the rest of the site improvements so that the lot lines can be drawn accurately through the existing common walls. If the buildings are constructed after the plat sometimes field conditions require boundary line adjustments to meet the as built conditions. Design Review The multi - family Design Review Criteria in the Zoning Code will work for townhouse development. The optional Multi - Family Design Guidelines booklet has some sections �- that would not be applicable, such as the child play area guidelines. cD(— �e s `�v�� ,s Pe— lOu ,40 v Staff proposes that projects following the short subdivision process (up to 9 lots) be subject to administrative design review and projects requiring a subdivision be subject to public hearing design review. Other Standards In addition modifications to the following bulk and coverage requirements would allow for a more market driven development pattern and density closer to what is achievable for stacked apartment/condominiums. • Setbacks Even if the setback requirements were only applied to the parent lot the tiered setbacks in the MDR and HDR zones have been identified by developers as difficult for townhouse development. Unlike an apartment building where a smaller unit could be substituted to create a larger setback on the second or third floor, a townhouse may only be 20 feet wide so an additional 10' of setback would compromise the usability of that floor. Also townhouses would typically only have bedrooms on the third level, unlike apartment buildings, so they may be less intrusive on neighbors. �2— G-2Acp/ -Ltd 61- 10o✓ NG P C il �(' 9 ' .4Page Q:\ Townhouses \4- 10CAP_Townhouse.DOC � 04/04/2007 1:40:00 PM 19 • Development Coverage It is not possible to achieve zoned density with a typical townhouse product under r0, , the 50% impervious surface limitation. Townhouses are typically twice as large as ' an average apartment usually with 2 to 3 bedrooms and a garage. A 50 -60% building footprint limitation is common in other jurisdictions. 20 • Recreation Space Other codes require between 200 and 300 square feet of recreation space per unit with some granting 2 for 1 credit for balconies and patios. In addition setback areas that are part of private open space for an individual unit should be allowed to count toward the recreation space requirement. Since the small private yards are generally fenced some thought should be given to limiting the height of fences, especially along street frontages. ?C- RECOMMENDATION Forward the proposal to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. )v ?c ( 6AF NG Q:\ Townhouses \4- 10CAP_Townhouse.DOC Page 4 04/04/2007 1:40:00 PM I. SITE PLANNING Streetscape - The transition from public to private spaces A. The transition from a pedestrian oriented streetscape to multi -story buildings shall emphasize pedestrian scale architectural elements such as porches, plantings of varying heights, and use pedestrian oriented entries, courts, and lighting. It is possible to make the transition to the site, building and individual unit in many different physical ways. For example, a sidewalk could lead through a gate to a private yard and then to a porch before reaching the front door of the townhouse. The most successful solution will consist of a combination of the above suggested symbolic definers or other comparable mechanisms. Spccia! pavers and entry sign. Fig. 1: Project entry provides an immediate sense of high quality design. ( I•\Tn.vnhnmac \MFom9vflocl:i.ifl a.... TOWNHOUSE DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL B. Provide a clearly defined building or courtyard entry from the primary street. 1. Use distinctive architectural elements and materials to indicate the entry such as a change in paving material, low wall, steps, trellis, or arbor. 2. Define the transition space from the sidewalk to the entry with a terrace, plaza, or landscaped area. 3. Consider turning the end unit (or pair of units) to face the public street, see Figure 20. Natural Environment — Retain natural site amenities C. Incorporate existing healthy and attractive vegetation into project design by locating buildings to maximize significant tree retention on slopes, retain tree stands, and minimize disturbance of sensitive areas. Retaining large stature trees and tree stands on site very significantly improves the integration of new developments into Tukwila's mature neighborhoods. Fig. 2: Site buildings and roads to retain mature trees. Q: \Townhomes \MFami IyDesGuide. doc - 2 - March 3, 2007 D. Landform grading should be used when feasible to reflect the natural topography and retain mature trees. Landform Site Planning Fig. 3: Comparison of conventional and landform site grading. E. Site coverage on slopes should be minimized to reduce visual impact. Site coverage limitations are not as significant on flat sites where lower buildings may be preferable to maximize architectural harmony with nearby structures and the streetscape. F. Site design should be integrated with the neighborhood. Project design integration should include coordination of circulation, landscaping, recreation spaces, and building location with the surrounding area. A visual distinction using landfonn, landscaping, or materials may separate a project from the general neighborhood. However, high "fortress" walls should be avoided and buildings should not turn their backs to the street. O : \Townhomes \M Familvneqn"ide dnc Circulation — Pedestrian G. A comprehensive system of pedestrian sidewalks should link all building/unit entries, parking lots, recreation areas and the project entries with the area -wide sidewalk system. H. Sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet wide between public roadway and the junction where pedestrian traffic begins to disperse. This would allow one pedestrian to pass another and remain on the sidewalk. A minimum four foot wide sidewalk may then be acceptable. I. Sidewalk crossings of on -site roadways should be distinguished by a different material and slightly raised to prevent runoff from flowing across them. Q:1Townhome&M Fami l yDes Gu i de.doc Contrasting material marks *devil= Fig. 4: Key sidewalk intersections and segments are marked with contrasting pavers. J. Buildings should be separated at least 8 feet from driveways and parking spaces where facing windowed walls (but not the entry) of ground units and have a minimum 13 foot separation when facing the entry of ground units. K. Separate buildings from common walkways by at least 8 feet in the structure's front and rear, and a minimum 4 feet on its side. L. Separation guidelines do not apply to incidental structures such as trellises, 18 inch roof eaves, chimneys, covered walks, and pedestrian oriented amenities. _4_ March3,2007 Circulation — Vehicular M. Design the on -site vehicle circulation system as follows: • A maximum of two vehicle access points, depending on parcel characteristics and difficulty of access, to reduce traffic impacts and the site area devoted to roads instead of architecture and landscape /recreation space, • Create very low volume cul -de -sacs to allow multiple use as street oriented social/recreation areas, and • Stress shared driveways between adjacent developments. Parking N. Locate parking to minimize conflicts between autos and pedestrians. Driveways should avoid crossing pedestrian walkways and paths from residence to children's play area. In large parking lots, provide pedestri walkways to allowing people to move safely. Additional space should be provided where carser`�'iang curbs, driveways or pedestrian walkways. - rto p1.2✓4t it 0. Separate driveway parking areas with landscape islands to create an individual unit entry and reduce the appearance of large areas of paving. Fig. 5: Separation of driveways with landscape islands. P. Provide the majority of the required parking spaces in attached garages (tandem parking allowed), underground parking, and underbuilding parking when grades permit at least partial screening. Q. Minimize the prominence of surface parking by using architecture and landscaping to break up or screen parking areas, moving parking to the side or rear, and breaking up large parking areas into smaller ones. (1-\Tnumhmmwe \M Fermi luTl..c(]i, . An. _ G _ 11 d .....Vs 1 . 1 nIll s-v.• / w�1• - , • Solar Orientation Q: \Townhomes\M FamilyDesGu ide.doc Fig. 6: Parking located so that it is screened by buildings. fit• '. ;r: R. Supplemental parking areas should be located within 200 feet of the farthest dwelling unit served for the convenience of residents. S. The optimum design for a parking area is not necessarily the one which parks the maximum number of vehicles. , : • - • - The design should also provide ample stall and aisle widths, lengths, pedestrian walks, adequate turning radii, reasonable grades, efficient movement of traffic, pleasant appearance, and convenient location. T. Four to six space parking lots are pedestrian and human in character, while over twelve cars become car dominated. The critical number seems to be ten. This marks the breaking point between a human lot and a sea of cars. Small lots can be accomplished by breaking large parking areas into sections that serve no more than 10 to 12 cars. Landscape islands and areas should be located to protect cars as well as to break up seas of asphalt. U. To maximize the warming effect of solar radiation in winter months and maximize shade in the summer months: 1. Utilize deciduous trees for summer shade and winter sun 2. Orient active living spaces to the south. 3. Design building overhangs to shield the high summer sun and expose the area to the lower winter sun. - 6 - March 3, 2007 Crime Prevention V. Employ the Concept of Defensible Space to reduce opportunities for crime. "Defensible space" is a term used to describe a series of physical design characteristics that maximizes resident control of behavior -- particularly crime. A residential development designed under defensible space guidelines clearly defines all areas as either public, semi - private or private. In so doing, it determines who has the right to be in each space, and allows residents to be confident in responding to any questionable activity or persons within their complex. Residents are thus encouraged to extend their private realms, establish their zone of influence which inevitably results in a heightened sense of responsibility towards the care and maintenance of these outdoor areas. W. The following series of techniques can be used to create defensible space and consequently reduce crime. They are summarized in: • Defining zones of privacy (public, semi - private, private) with real or symbolic barriers. This allows residents to identify "strangers ". • Establishing perceived zones of influence (allowing residents to extend their private realms). • Providing surveillance opportunities. Additional design considerations include the following: • Orient windows so that areas vulnerable to crime can be easily surveyed by residents. • Locate mailboxes, garbage collection enclosures and common play areas in such a way that they are easily observed by others. Mailboxes should not be located in dark alcoves out of sight • Establish a system for identifying the location of each residential unit and common facilities at the project entry. • Lighting. More light is not necessarily indicative of better and safer lighting. Lighting levels should be carefully selected and oriented so that areas vulnerable to crime are accented. Provide lighting in areas of heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in areas which are dangerous if unlit, such as stairs and ramps, intersections or where abrupt changes in grade occur. Areas that have high crime potential should be well lighted so that people traveling through them at night may feel secure. • Locate plant materials such as high shrubs so that surveillance of semi - public and semi- private areas is not blocked. This will provide the opportunity for crime. • Use visually open fencing materials such as wrought iron bars or wooden pickets to define space between the street and building. X. Sticker shrubs may discourage crime activities. Low shrubs and umbrella trees (where the canopy is maintained above 5 feet from the ground) will allow surveillance opportunities, hence reducing the potential for criminal behavior. O: \Tnwnhnmec \MFamit ,n,. ru ;o .1... II. BUILDING DESIGN Neighborhood Compatibility A. Minimize the appearance of building scale differences between proposed townhouses and existing neighborhood residential units that conform to current zoning. Portions of multi - family developments adjoining areas zoned for single family should maintain a scale, facade and orientation similar to single family uses for compatibility with existing structures. A project site plan and cross - sections should show the footprint of all adjacent structures within 100 feet of the property line to help evaluate compatibility. Fig. 7: Incorporation of elements from neighboring structures into townhouse design. B. Reflect the architectural character of neighboring residences (within 300' on the same street) where it provides a positive example through use of related building features including scale /mass, height, the proportions of entries, windows and other openings (fenestration), color, materials, and shapes. 1. Step the roof on the building perimeter segments to transition between a proposed taller building and an existing residential structure. 2. Replicate or approximate roof forms and pitch found on existing residential structures in the neighborhood. 3. Use window patterns and proportions similar to those on existing residential structures in the neighborhood. 4. Use building facade materials similar to those used on existing residential buildings in the neighborhood. 5. Maintain a consistent relationship to the street (i.e., building setbacks and entryways) as existing buildings. Q:1Town homes\M Fa mi l y DesGu ide. doc - g - March 3, 2007 • - • Offsets, changes in materials, and other fine detailing are used to provide arc1iitecturaI interest. • -. •*" • A Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuideodoc r--- Pitched roofs, building modulation and \ intimate entries introduce a single family scald to this dense building. Fig. 8: Detailing and modulation are used to reduce the scale of the building. c--- A oellised may provida structural transition from pedestrian eniiiimmtra to \ building mass and helps separate iniblie from Salti:priiyate project spaces - 9 - Mnrpl, ••1 . . 1.4 •1• -•••••:- !1.••• '••••• , • Building Entrances C. Avoid the use of exterior stairways to second stories that are visible from the street. Fig. 9: Relationship of entry to street level. Q: \Townhomes\MFarnilyDesGuide.doc - 10 - March 3, 2007 D. Townhouse units shall have an individual entrance, with entrance vestibules, canopies or porches to give identity to each unit and provide weather protection. The main entrance to units adjacent to a public street shall be accessed from and face the street. Building Elevations Fig. 10 : Individual entry porch. E. Attached townhouses shall read as a unified building mass, maintaining a common architectural language across the entire length of units. This mass shall be varied by changes in unit orientation, color /material variations, shifts in roof profile, and variation at corner units. Windows, bays, balconies, and other articulation could also be used to express the individuality of each unit. F. Each building shall incorporate treatments that "complete" the end and corner units, including: 1. an extended base or ground floor units 2. a protrusion, porch or bay that wraps the corner, or 3. an embedded corner tower 11 G. A 3 -story blank wall, even if at the narrow end of a building, does not reflect acceptable design quality. Use architectural relief and fine detailing to break up monotonous surfaces. H. Avoid applied ornamentation which is not related to building structure or architectural design. This would include arbitrary, inconsistent forms and decoration; uninterrupted floating horizontal elements; and large blank surfaces. Windows I. Provide relief, detail, and visual rhythm on the facade with well - proportioned windows. 1. Use window patterns, proportions, and orientation consistent with neighboring residences. 2. Use multiple -pane windows. 3. Provide windows that are designed to create shadows (either deeply recessed or protruding). 4. Use visually significant window elements (i.e. frame dimensions, lintels, casings, sills, and trim. 5. Locate windows so that the occupants from one residence cannot look directly into an adjacent residence. Fig. 12: Window form examples. Roofline Q:1Town homes \\M Fami l yDesGu i de.d oc J. Vary the roofline along the building length to reflect individual units. This can be achieved using: - separate roof forms - a combination of roof types, such as shed, gabled and hipped roofs) - gables and dormers K. Pitched and continuous sloping roof forms are encouraged. Flat roofs shall be discouraged. Where flat roofs are used, they should be detailed with parapets or roof overhangs, and detailed with brackets, corbels or other decorative supports. - 12 - March 3, 2007 Fig. 13: Roof form variation. Building Massing L. More prominent sites and buildings require a higher level of design quality. This would include projects which are located near hill tops or intersections, or which include large visible building masses. M. Use building and roof modulation and articulation to reduce the appearance of large building masses. O: \Townhomes\MFamilvDes(iuide dnc 1. Modulate the building facade with features such as porches, balconies, building wall relief, and bay windows. 2. Provide roof elements such as gables, eyebrow roof forms or dormers. 3. Incorporate prominent cornice, soffit, or fascia details that emphasize the top of the building. 4. Provide prominent roof overhangs. 5. Articulate the roof with rafter tails and brackets. Fig. 14: Differentiation of individual units through building and roof modulation to reduce the appearance of large building masses. Material and Colors N. Construct building exteriors of durable and maintainable materials that are attractive even when viewed up close. Use building materials that have texture, pattern, or lend themselves to a high quality of detailing. Appropriate materials are horizontal lap siding, shingles, brick, stone, stucco, ceramic or terra cotta tile. 0. Use a variety of complementary colors on building exteriors. Reserve brightly saturated colors for accent or trim features. Garage Design P. Design garages and carports so that they do not dominate the dwelling's facade. 1. Locate garages and carports behind residences, stepped back from the building's street facade, or provide a side entry (perpendicular to the street). 2. Design driveways to be as narrow as possible and/or shared where possible to minimize impervious surface and to minimize disruption of the sidewalk and planting strip by curb cuts. 3. Incorporate windows into garage sidewalls whenever they face the street so that they appear to contain habitable space. 4. Incorporate garage door elements which reduce the apparent size of the doors, such as panels and windows. 5. Use materials and colors that match the residence. • Fig. 15: Side entry garage with windows. Q :1Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 14 - March 3, 2007 III. LANDSCAPE /SITE TREATMENT Landscape Design A. Plants can be used to curtail erosion, to soften the built environment, define or emphasize open space, give privacy, block wind and lessen the effects of solar radiation. B. Although the landscape plan should reflect plants at maturity, landscaping should be considered as a design element harmonizing site plans and building design only to the extent of its effect in five years. This could mean using significantly larger initial plant stock for those project designs which rely heavily upon landscaping to provide relief for building and site design or screen the project. C. Select and site landscape materials to produce a hardy and drought- resistant landscape area consistent with project design. Selection should include consideration of soil type and depth, spacing, exposure to sun and wind, slope and contours of the site, building walls and overhangs, and compatibility of new plant material with existing vegetation to be preserved on the site. D. Install all plant materials to current nursery industry standards. Landscape plant material should be properly guyed and staked to current industry standards. Planting of trees in compacted soils is prohibited unless minimum 12 inch gravel drain sumps are installed under each tree to a minimum of 36 inch depth, or the subgrade soil beyond the planting pit is rototilled to a 9 inch depth to the drip line or edge of planter, whichever is less. E. Plant shrubs used to define spaces or separate environments as a staggered double row whenever possible. This provides the significant depth especially necessary to separate environments such as parking areas from grassed fields and building entries. F. Limit shrub beds to a maximum of two feet wide per typical row of nursery stock plants, in order to minimize barked area and maximize live ground cover. A typical five foot wide barked planting bed for a single row of shrubs is not acceptable. Protection of Existing Trees G. The survival and general health of a tree depends as much on the condition of its root system as it does on the factors influencing the above - ground portion. This vital root system extends out to, and sometimes beyond the tree's drip line (the outermost reach of branches). Any significant disturbance to the root area, such as high surface compaction, root severing, over - watering and/or removal of organic material in which the tree has composted over several years, will almost certainly kill the tree. Tree removal and replacement would be required after a few seasons of progressive deterioration. H. Protect significant trees during construction with a chain -link fence or plastic vinyl construction fence at the drip line. Install the protection fence prior to issuance of grading permit. Removal or destruction of fencing should be cause for a Stop Work Order until reviewed by City staff. C) \Tnwnhnmec \MFamilvnecC;uide_ tine - 1 S u Z ,nn-7 Fig. 16: Tree protected with a chain link fence at the drip line during construction. Design for Screening and Separation I. Full privacy requires an opaque fence or evergreen barrier at least six feet high or above eye level, depending on the angle of view. Noise reduction requires a dense fence (i.e., concrete /masonry) wall or berm in addition to plantings. J. Area separation requires a continuous physical barrier not less than three feet high. A greater degree of separation would require a higher opaque barrier. A separation planting strip could be deciduous or evergreen. K. Provide a privacy fence along side and rear yards if adjoining single family zoning. This should be 6 feet high sight- obscuring wood (or equivalent) fence with exterior materials and colors consistent with building architecture. Outdoor Space Design L. Outdoor space tends to be unusable when it is simply the "leftovers" after buildings are placed on the land. Outdoor spaces should have a definite functional shape, be internally designed to fulfill that function, and be functionally associated with a specific unit or unit group (see "Defensible Space" in Site Plan guidelines). M. Complexes with 10 or more units must provide an on -site recreation space for children with at least one area designed for children aged 5 -12, see TMC 18.52.060. This area should be characterized by interactive group equipment which tests skills. The Parks and Recreation Director should be consulted in the review of acceptable design proposals. N. The child play area should reflect the design elements below: 1. Visually accessible to casual surveillance by passersby and residents. This is a key element in facility safety and generally requires a central location. Q:1Townhomes\M Famil y DesGu ide.doc - 16 - March 3, 2007 2. Provide separation of play areas from general passersby for security. 3. Easy safe access from residence to play area(s) 4. Hard surface areas for wheeled toys and tricycles. 5. Equipment with zones to satisfy the specific sensory and skill needs up to age 12. 6. Use water and sand if limited to two materials. These provide more possibilities for play and fun than all asphalt deserts combined. The ability to move over, under, around or through something.affords a child control. He can change his relationship to it. 7. A child should be able to control his level of involvement with others. Make small sheltered areas for solitary play, larger spaces .for group play. 8. An adjacent sitting area for monitoring the children. Lighting Q: \Townhomes\MFamilyDesGu ide.doc Fig. 17: A recreation space for the 5 -12 year old group which facilitates group interaction and skill testing. O. Linkages with existing public trail and park facilities should be made where possible, either through immediate construction or agreement to jointly participate in the coordinated provision of such a linkage at a later date. IV. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES /STREET FURNITURE A. Reflect project architectural design considerations in all exterior lighting (i.e., distribution, intensity, and pattern). B. Maximum parking area light standard height is 20 feet or the height of the building; whichever is less. - 17 - March 3, 2007 Fig. 18: Parking lot lighting. C. Maximum walkway and grounds lighting is 15 feet. Light fixture height is limited to enhance a sense of scale and enclosure for common areas at night. D. Provide all lighting standards with glare cut -off features to avoid off -site spill -over. E. Place fixtures so that light patterns overlap at a height of 7 feet which is sufficiently high to vertically illuminate a person's body. F. At hazardous locations, such as changes of grade, use lower level supplemental lighting or additional overhead units. Where low -level lighting (below 5 feet) is used, fixtures should be placed in such a way that they do not produce glare. Most eye levels occur between 3 feet 8 inches for wheelchair users and 6 feet for standing adults. G. Where walkway lighting is provided primarily by low fixtures provide sufficient peripheral lighting to illuminate the immediate surroundings. Peripheral lighting contributes to a feeling of security in an individual because he can see into his surroundings to determine whether or not passage through an area is safe. Such an area should be lighted so that the object or person may be seen directly or in silhouette. Fencing, Walls, and Screening H. All fencing, walls, and screening should reflect building architecture and be harmonious with adjacent project designs. This includes consideration of proportion, color, texture, and materials. Design perimeter fencing to be attractive from both sides. Service Areas 1. Screen all exterior maintenance equipment, including HVAC equipment, electrical equipment, storage tanks, satellite dishes, and garbage dumpsters from off -site and on -site common area view in an architecturally integrated manner. Q :\Townhomes \MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 18 - March 3, 2007 Fig. 19: Dumpsters are sited and screened to minimize prominence. J. Several small dumpsters adjacent to buildings such as garages are preferable to a single large free standing site. Dumpsters should have solid architectural wall screening only to the container height to minimize its prominence. Garb age pickup area for nem development Fig. 20: Garbage collection area screened from public street. K. Recycling containers and areas should conform to King County standards or as amended by Tukwila standards. Street Furniture L. Carry out the project's design concept with the choice of street furniture. M. Foster opportunities for social gathering by residents in shared open spaces by the provision of seating and other amenities. Separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian- oriented areas with the use of bollards and other barrier features. Q:\Townhomes\MFamilyDesGuide.doc - 19 - March 3. 2007 MULTI - FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DI A ATAIIAIr! nnJrc1n)v October 13, 1992 Attachment E TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I SITE PLANNING Streetscape - The transition from public to private spaces Site Design Quality Natural Environmental Considerations Circulation Parking Entrance Areas Energy Conservation Crime Prevention Signs /Graphics II BUILDING DESIGN Relationship to Adjoining Site Building Design Exterior Elevations III LANDSCAPE /SITE TREATMENT Landscape Design Protection of Existing Trees Screening Buffering Usable Outdoor Space Recreation Area Design • IV MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES /STREET FURNITURE Lighting Fencing, Walls and Screening Street Furniture INTRODUCTION Guideline Use Fig. 1: SUMMARY GUIDELINE USE PROCESS Recognize that all projects must reflect high design quality which are harmonious with the natural and manmade environments (TMC 18.60.010). Review required multi - family review guidelines (TMC 18.60.053) for general guidance on project design quality. Review the optional illustrative Multi - family Design Guidelines herein for specific design examples and orientations. Project Architect reviews all guidelines then: a. adapts the illustrative design concepts to the specific site Qt b. develops an alternative design approach with results in a similar level of design quality. Planning Staff reviews and works with Project Architect. Tukwila Board of Architectural Review evaluates the development and ensures that only well designed projects which maintain neighborhood livability are approved. 1 The City of Tukwila has adopted a policy that all multi - family developments must reflect high design quality; regardless of whether the project is oriented toward the low, middle, or high cost housing market. This does not mean that only high cost projects will be permitted in Tukwila. However, it does mean that maintaining livable neighborhoods requires architectural focus, design symmetry, and neighborhood harmony in low cost housing as well as in high cost housing. Tukwila's Zoning Code includes various development standards to reflect basic minimum requirements such as density, building setbacks, and parking. Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approval is the basis for ensuring high design quality (TMC 18.60). BAR approval does not focus on required "numbers" to define quality design. Instead, it relies on overall results as generally defined in TMC 18.60.053. These Design Guidelines are provided to help the applicant understand the City's general desired level of quality, and to provide the BAR with a further basis for determining the needed level of design quality. These Design Guidelines are not requirements, nor are they a substitute for competent . work by design professionals on a site specific basis. The City encourages innovative design alternatives which better reflect site specific conditions and opportunities. The City recognizes that there are many techniques and architectural forms which can be used to reflect a design quality equivalent to these guidelines. In some cases such as high density projects on sensitive or prominent sites, the design quality reflected in these guidelines must be exceeded in order to maintain the existing level of neighborhood livability. The remaining introductory section discusses a vision for Tukwila's neighborhoods. This is followed by specific design guidelines which have been grouped to generally reflect the BAR review criteria (TMC 18.53) that they illustrate. I. SITE PLANNING • Streetscape The transition from public to private spaces Fig. 2: Project siting, architecture and landscaping provide a sense of high quality design from road to interior spaces, design harmony between projects, and complement desirable neighborhood elements. — 7 - 1 ( \e____-2.-- , n iv _ r1 5 ua Succeuive lavas of trees' provide transition to largo but ldt tgl and harmony with mature neighborhoods J 1 p i fr ge than P�ngLlo a better i i 2 1. "The challenge facing buil develop pcdestri • . tmospher the automobile. twenty years h dominated by ga environment with environment di ( "Development Di 2. A streetscape quality coordinat family neighborh design harmony is of "community" of diverse, som and automobiles. • ers in the 90's ... is to reducing the impact of veloprnents in the last uced streetscapes often rs and driveways creating an 'ghborhood interaction: an pedestrian activity." , 1990.) afe and reflects a high , is essential in multi- This overlay of street front ortant to maintaining the sense an be lost in an environment s le/mediocre project designs 15 foot Landscape strip provides transition from public strectscape to one -story project architecture A street wee and separated sidewalk rysum contribute to visual continuity between projats, and pedestrians from cart Paved areas ` plaruas provide additional sidewalk I. SITE PLANNING • 0 v),cn - v L,...) 1 0 k Vt•A• -V S LC. ✓� s1 v tee, 00 e,:),,,-r- n i a; ick, Fig. 3: Street trees and ne story pit hec d r' buildings are used to helper pedestrian streetscape without dominating it. One -story pitched roof building are used to enclose the pedestrian streetscape without domininaang u • rtf— A 25 foot pedestrian cnvironmau provides linkage be wran projects 3 3. The pu • ' oriented elements of a well designed, pedestrian streets : ,, include separa • . ewalks; coordinated placement • l- - . on of large stature trees; coordinated str- - fu , signage, and lighting; and int : •tcd recreationa 'lity links. Curb -line sid alks may be acceptable on cu -sacs or local cess loops with low traffic volumes (i.e., gene • • ted by 20 housing units) 4. The private site elements of a well designed ,pedestrian streetscape include buildings which use siting, scale, and materials to provide a sense of quality design and enclosure without overwhelming the pedestrian with building mass. 5. There should be a giaduaI; high quality transition from a pedestrian oriented streetscape to multi -story buildings. The transition should emphasize quality pedestrian scale architecture and materials, plantings of varying heights, and use pedestrian oriented entries, courts, and lighting. It is at this interface that the neighborhood's quality will be perceived by the public. I. SITE PLANNING Site Design Quality Fig. 4: Buildings and landscaping are sited to reduce the prominence of large paved areas. Central island visually breaks up lot with landscaping and a structure at cars auer the parking arca Fig. 5: Parking is located to the side of the project to minimize an auto dominated streetscape. 4 • 6. Site planning and building architecture must provide a high quality project design. Landscaping should not be needed to hide mediocre building design, but further enhance an already good design, and result in a high quality project. 7. Site design should be integrated with the neighborhood. Project design integration should Treerfra include coordination of circulation, landscaping, and provide a recreation spaces, and building location with the asphalt Gral.f. surrounding area. A visual distinction using landform, landscaping, or materials may separate a project from the general neighborhood. However, high "fortress" walls should be avoided and buildings should not turn their backs to the street. 8. Walls, shrubs, and other visual obstructions bctween street frontage and building architecture should be limited to a maximum 3.5 ft. height to allow easy surveillance by Police Department car patrols. Higher fencing may be installed if it uses visually open materials such as wrought iron bars and 3 inch spaced grape stake fences. 9. Minimize the prominence of street front parking areas by using architecture and landscaping to break up or screen these sterile asphalt pads, moving parking to the side or rear, and breaking up large parking areas into smaller (i.e., 20-40 space) groupings. Vehicles should be treated as a means of transportation; not emphasized as a prominent design feature. (Fig. 11, 12, and 23) I. SITE PLANNING • Natural Environment Fig. 6: Site b dings o group open space in in mature trees, and residents to meet and significant areas, create opportu recreate. —Open space grouped into significant areas which can have many uses Fig. 7: Significant trees are retained through building siting and use of required interior parking lot landscaping. •T n�,�L e-vvTtn 6 : zc ?(M; Jc .- Open cd a wasted is in pip areas Significant trees saved SEC A -A Buildings located off slope to retain significant ores and reduce prominence. 5 10. Minimize a project's visual prominence and enhance the harmony with its natural setting. (Fig. 7) 11. Open spa should be desi connected, natu , k woods each serving a p purpose. Diversit to important since onotonous are as often - result of repetitive as they a repetitive building masses. as a series of formal garden areas, functional and aesthetic anizing these spaces is using developments atial organization 12. One or more open space focal points should be incorporated as a basic site planning element. 13. Building scale and materials should provide a sense of human scale, enclosure and warmth in defining these spaces. Small, isolated planters alone are not adequate to break up paved areas and building mass, separate structures, and define spaces. 14. Buildings should be located to maximize significant tree retention on slopes, retain tree stands, and minimize disturbing sensitive areas. 15. Retaining large stature trees and tree stands on N site, very significantly improves the integration of new developments into Tukwila's mature neighborhoods. amt.-grate: 16. gffort should be made to incorporate existing natural vegetation into project design. ti•' • - • • • ' • • - • • • ited to ct densities to This' w er- pereerntage of dards not o 1 Wig)• I. SITE PLANNING Fig. 8: The topographical representation below shows radical water flow, foliage placement in swales, and lots that conform with the landform configuration. The shaded area is a concrete terrace drain required by building codes. The sketch contrasts site planning for conventionally graded and landform graded slopes. 1 B 1 Building 1 STREET l Building 1 slope L 1 Building 1 1 Building Conventional Site Planning I Building 1 Slope STREET Landform Site Planning 6 • 17. Site coverage on slopes should be minimized to reduce visual impact. Site coverage limitations are not as significant on flat sites where lower buildings may be preferable to maximize architectural harmony with nearby structures and the streetscape. 18. Landform grading should be used when feasible to reflect the natural topography and retain mature trees. 19. Creative design should be applied to turn natural site "problems" into project amenities. (Fig. 9) Fig. 9: Creative site planning can turn a drainage problem into an open space amenity. I. SITE PLANNING • • Fig. 10: Key sidewalk intersections and segments are marked with contrasting pavers. Building may area Circulation Contrasting inatoial markt pedestrian crossings Fig. 11: Detached garages and cul de sacs reduce parking area prominence on the streetscape. 7 20. The project entry should reflect a high level of quality using distinctive materials, landscaping and structures. 21. A comprehensive system of pedestrian sidewalks should link all building entries, parking lots, recreation areas and the project entries; with the area - wide sidewalk system. 22. Sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet wide between public roadway and the junction where pedestrian traffic begins to disperse. This would allow one pedestrian to pass another and remain on the sidewalk. A minimum four foot wide sidewalk may then be acceptable. 23. Sidewalk crossings of on -site roadways should be distinguished by a different material and slightly raised to prevent runoff from flowing across them. 24. The on -site vehicle circulation system should be designed as follows: • A maximum of two vehicle access points, depending on parcel characteristics and difficulty of access, to reduce traffic impacts and the site area devoted to roads instead of architecture and landscape /recreation space, • Create very low volume cul -de -sacs to allow multiple use as street oriented social/recreation areas, and • Stress shared driveways between adjacent developments. 25. Driveways should avoid crossing pedestrian walkways and paths from residence to children's play area. I. SITE PLANNING Parking Fig. 12: Site design incorporates scattered, less dominating parking areas. Fig. 13: A site plan with four parking areas, an access road and parking circulation aisle. Property Line 8 • 26. The prominence of parking areas should be minimized by building siting, under building and tandem parking, and interior perimeter landscaping. Parking areas should not dominate buildings they are intended to serve. 27. Parking areas should be located within 200 feet of the farthest dwelling unit for the convenience of residents. It is also desirable in many instances to use several smaller parking areas rather than a few large lots. 28. The optimum design for a parking area is not necessarily the one which parks the maximum number of vehicles, but the one that also provides ample stall and aisle widths, pedestrian walks, adequate turning radii, reasonable grades, efficient movement of traffic, pleasant appearance, and convenient location. 29. In apartment and row house developments, it is desirable to locate parking where conflicts between autos and pedestrians are minimized. In large parking lots, pedestrian walkways allowing people to move safely should be used. In small parking areas, walkways between :lines of parked cars may be difficult to justify in light of economy and proximity to adjacent walks. Walkways lend a pleasant visual pattem to the parking area, especially when planted. Additional space should be provided where cars overhang curbs. H u a. l awn In ors c 5�.rl te r- c e1 I. SITE PLANNING Fig. 14: Interior and perimeter landscaping reduce the visual affects of large paved parking areas. Interior landscaping should be increased as parking lots get larger. Lore trees visually — buAd parking areas and give microclimate rel4 L A single 42 space parking lot • i • W IN 10 € 10 3 4 5 6 8 �I 4 t: urp 4 I I I ! itS r AD P • COMM An enhanced =f crossing t; a large paridng area Small parking areas do not require interior landscaping 9 30. When do parking lots become too big? Four to six spaces, is pedestrian and human in character, while over twelve cars becomes "car dominated territory." The critical number seems to be ten. This marks the breaking point between a human lot and a sea of cars. Small lots can be accomplished by breaking large parking areas into sections divided with landscape areas. Each section should serve not more than 10 to 12 cars. Landscape islands and areas should be located to protect cars as well as to break up seas of asphalt. 31. A landscaped area shall be placed at the end of each interior row in the parking area with no more than 10 stalls between the landscape areas. Parking area design should also incorporate the following: • All driveways onto public streets should be located a minimum of 50 feet from the intersection. • All maneuvering needs should be provided for entirely on -site. • All areas not necessary for vehicular maneuvering or parking should be landscaped. • Landscape areas within parking lots should not be less than 5 feet in width and protected with curbing. • An average 15 square feet of interior landscaped area per parking space for parking areas with more than 40 spaces should be provided as a general rule. The minimum 12 square feet per parking space is intended to be applied only in unusual situations where site constraints severely limit developable area or where superior site design effectively break up the effects of large paved areas and create a pedestrian friendly design. I. SITE PLANNING • Fig. 15: Tandem parking spaces should only be used in conjunction with under structure parking. Entrance Areas Fig. 16: Project entry provides an immediate sense of high quality design. Berms, landscaping and architecture form a gateway` Special pavrrs and entry sign • L#1.0(cpc 0,10t.),;IcIrr\. CC, o_Cror‘A- p,2r- or' r . 1 32. The entrance to the site, building and individual unit creates a transition between the outside public world and a successively less public inner world. Living units, with a graceful transition between the outside and inside, are more tranquil than those which open directly off the street or parking area. The experience of entering a building influences the perception of interior spaces. If the transition is too abrupt, there is no feeling of arrival and the inside of the home fails to be as private. I. SITE PLANNING Fig. 17: A high quality pedestrian entry is given equal weight with auto entries. • 11 33. It is possible to make the transition in many different physical ways. In some cases, for example, it may just be inside the front door- a kind of entry court, leading to another door or opening that is more definitely inside. In another case, the transition may be formed by a bend in the path that then moves through a gate. Transition might also be provided by changing the texture of the path, so that one steps off the sidewalk onto a gravel path, and then up a step or two under a trellis. Some entry elements include: • An accent tree which defines area with overhead branches. • A low wall for plants or draping vines. • A trellis or arbor. • A change in level. • A change in path texture. 34. The most successful solution will consist of a combination of the above suggested symbolic definers or other comparable mechanisms. I. SITE PLANNING Solar Orientation Fig. 18: Outdoor oriented recreation areas maximize solar exposure. Crime Prevention Fig. 19: Site planning should create varying degrees of privacy. • SEMI •PRIVF 1 w Jaw air Ns P U I� •moo• C P U B L I C S p A • 12 • 35. To maximize the warming effect of solar radiation in winter months and maximize shade in the summer months: • Utilize deciduous trees for summer shade and winter sun. • Orient active living spaces to the south. • Design building overhangs to shield the high summer sun and expose the area to the lower winter sun. 36. If possible, all buildings should be located and oriented to take advantage of natural energy saving elements such as the sun, landscape, and landfonn. 37. The opportunity (or invitation) for crime can be greatly reduced through physical design and site layout. Considerations for crime control should be included at the project's inception. Where hardware afterthoughts have been too heavily depended upon, crime opportunities have continued to exist and crime prevention has failed. 38. The Concept of Defensible Space should be employed to reduce opportunities for crime. "Defensible space" is a term used to describe a series of physical design characteristics that maximize resident control of behavior -- particularly crime. A residential development designed under defensible space guidelines clearly defines all areas as either public, semi- private or private. In so doing, it determines who has the right to be in each space, and allows residents to be confident in responding to any questionable activity or persons within their complex. Residents are thus encouraged to extend their private realms, establish their zone of influence which inevitably results in a heightened sense of responsibility towards the care and maintenance of these outdoor areas. . I. SITE PLANNING Fig. 20: Cul de sacs create semi - private "courts" to provide increased security and informal play areas. Fig. 21: Semi - private project areas are separated from general public areas using transitional spaces which are visually open in design. • • A branching sidewalk and seep -up entry define srnu private project areas while maintaining a visually open smetscape. 13 39. A series of techniques can be used to create defensible space and consequently reduce crime. They are summarized in the following: • Defining zones of privacy (public, semi - private, private) with real or symbolic barriers. This allows residents to identify "strangers ". • Establishing perceived zones of influence (allowing residents to extend their private realms). • Providing surveillance opportunities. Additional design considerations include the following: • Parking Layout. Parking for residents should be located so that distances to dwellings are minimized and allow easy surveillance from nearby areas and windows: • Orientation of Windows. Windows should be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be easily surveyed by residents. Location of Service and Laundry Areas. Laundry rooms should be located in such a way that they are observed by others. • Windows and lighting should be incorporated to assure surveillance opportunities. • Mailboxes should not be located in dark alcoves out of sight. Barriers to Police. In semi -public and semi- private areas, barriers which would hinder police patrol, such as confused parking pattems and tall shrubs, should be avoided. 1. N11 L YLA1N1•11■11s Fig. 22: A transition from semi - private to private spaces with low volume paths, trellises and alcoves. 14 • Identity. A system for identifying the location of each residential unit and common facilities at the project entry should be established. • Hardware. Police department should be contacted for information regarding appropriate hardware such as door locks, window latches, etc. • Lighting. More light is not necessarily indicative of better and safer lighting. Lighting levels should be carefully selected and oriented so that points and areas vulnerable to crime are accented. Lighting should be provided in areas of heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in areas which are dangerous if unlit, such as stairs and ramps, intersections or where abrupt changes in grade occur. Areas that have high crime potential should be well lighted so that people traveling through them at night may feel secure. • Landscaping. Plant materials such as high shrubs, should not be located so that surveillance of semi - public and semi - private areas is blocked. This will provide .the opportunity for crime. 40. Sticker shrubs may discourage crime activities. Low shrubs and umbrella trees (where the canopy is maintained above 5 feet from the ground) will allow surveillance opportunities, hence reducing the potential for criminal behavior. II. BUILDING DESIGN• Fig. 23: Multi- family building line and proportions are harmonious with surrounding single family dwellings. ROAD SF almom SF 60 - 0 .. SF SIMILAR BUILDING IIEIGIIT WITHIN 60 FEET 01' PROPERTY: LINE SF .... N �., HARMONIOUS,BUILDING HARMONIOUS BUILDING PROPORTIONS Fig. 24: Multi- family building shape, height and length are similar to adjacent single family buildings. SIMILAR ROOF HEIGIIT AND SCALE TIUL I- FAMILY ZONE SINGI.I. FAMILY ZONE 15 1. Building design harmony with the surrounding neighborhood should be emphasized. Building design elements should include scale /mass, modulation, height, the proportions of entries, windows and other openings (fenestration), color, materials, and shapes. This is not to require mimicry or that creativity is prohibited. Only that the creative act be sensitive to the neighborhood context. The City recognizes that its neighborhoods are in constant change and that the creative response to change is necessary in retaining its valuable residential ar p a 1 s. Ste nP. > �v ri�zvY� 2. Portions of multi-family developments adjoining Comprehensive Plan "Single Family Residence" areas should maintain a scale, facade and orientation similar to single family uses for compatibility with existing structures. Surrounding single family neighborhood building patterns may be used when adjacent single family lots are vacant. A project site plan and cross - sections should show the footprint of all adjacent structures within 100 feet of the property line to help eva uate compati ility. 3. Sloped roofs, minimum 5 ft. rise over 12 ft. nut, should be u on multi -f. , : stt dings_ta- enhance design harmony s •unding single family neighborhoods, and o - • slopes to enhance design harmony with su ••. nding 1.0 d forms. A 4 -1/2 foot rise may be • •propriate in co 'bination with wide (i.e., 24 ' . ) overhangs, as may • ansard roofs in speci circumstances to lower buildings below the tree or ridgeline. � c5 ,_,`, j M - - 4 - ci 4- -A-LD St I ,,-.,1. -6ns rw.a c., 1 -I- v - 11. Ell U1L1J11 \ll LI i3I.J1\ Alt (t om re, r t p.2%-- c ��- P-J/IDVC"s, 5 cildRa 01 ;P—c—. Fig. 25: No particular architectural design is specified. However, the sum of a structure's shape, fenestration, fine detailing and colors should be superior architectural design which is harmonious with the neighborhood. and french doors dctailin provide which helps avoid architectural monotony. 7R ; 16 4. More prominent sites and architecture require a higher level of design quality. This would include projects which are located near hill tops or intersections, or which include large visible building masses. 5. Building design and siting sh f ocal point ass • • ted with eac entry or open s • a • - often focal point is den • ed materials, and color fo materials, colors an to create a trans . onal seq Abrupt, desi : • and aids, su alcoves and in ignificant walks, Significant causal architectural ads helps to break up building mass " f .r . . ... define a visual tructure. A building fills this role. Such a y structural articulation, entity and interest. Shapes, aping should also be used nce to the focal point. as tacked on entry ould be avoided. it step up entry, central mid -level balcony and provide visual transition from street level to the four story building . .a •� ,. Oter • t� II. BUILDING DESIGN • M v (. Q rya - e.r- ` cL re,Qvf too ,101.; �- ( ae- S, A) o ,>`c loe, a B Scj4 - r . 3 .) -) Ise_ Fig. 26: Minimum building separation. 30- 20-- 15FT.( =1/2(10 +20 )) 25FT.(.1l2(20 +30)) 6. Structures should be separated by a distance equal to o - -half the sum of the adjacent building heights. 17 Where a bu s'ng has varying heights, each that building sh.. satisfy the separ (Fig. 265. The effec topo considered. on of n requirement c changes may be 7. Where buil' g height exceeds eet, the Board of Archite • ral Review should apply e Design Criteria • establish a building separation dist• e not less an 35 feet. 8. Buildings should be separated at least 8 feet from driveways and parking spaces where facing windowed walls (but not the entry) of ground units and have a minimum 13 foot separation when facing the entry of ground units. 9. Buildings should be separated from common walkways by at least 8 feet in the structure's front and rear, and a minimum 4 feet on its side. 10. Separation guidelines should not apply to incidental structures such as trellises, 18 inch roof eaves, chimneys, covered walks, and pedestrian oriented amenities. 5e4_ i -'`JJ ec4. ek-VA-''tV S <— II. BU1LD1N(i ULS1I Fig. 27: Design details need not be costly to significantly improve architectural quality. It 18 11. A 3 -story blank wall, even if at the narrow end of a building, does not reflect acceptable design quality. Architectural relief and fine detailing should be used to break up monotonous surfaces. 12. Avoid applied ornamentation which is not related to building structure or architectural design. This would include arbitrary, inconsistent forms and decoration; uninterrupted floating horizontal elements; and large blank surfaces. 13. All exterior maintenance equipment, including HVAC, equipment, storage tanks, satellite dishes, and garbage dumpsters should be screened from off -site and on -site common area view, in an architecturally integrated manner. II. BUILDING DESIGIO Exterior Elevations I (/ n e- de, . Fig. 28: Offsets, changes in materials, and other fine detailing are used to provide architectural interest. A 19 14. The exterior elev incorporate design featu materials and shapes, to uninterrupted building Additionally: 15. Structures sti than 60 feet. Pitched roofs, building modulation and intimate enures introduce a single family scale to this dense building dons b s ildings should as offsets, changes in clude large expanses of 16. Site design should avoid the dominance of large individual building walls or • e cumulative effect of successive smalle Iuildin: wall repetition. Building separation and m.• 1.. on should be sufficient to visually break up w. • asses. The measures needed to visually break . w . b masses will increase as a project increase in size . d cumulative building mass. The m mum standards for this guideline are specified in ' C 18.50. t have an unbroken wall longer A trellised awy provides structural transition from pedestrian environment to building mass and helps separate public from sari private project spaces d�111i 111E� ii1.� 1 �I��Il1I��I1l�'�� /.: w J III. LANDSCAPE /SITE 'EATMEN "1 Landscape Design Fig. 29: Landscaping shown at 5 years after planting. Tune of planting 90% of coverage after bears Fig. 30: Live groundcover is planted to achieve 90% coverage within 3 years from installation. mod • L' • • 1. Plants can be used to curtail erosion, to soften the built environment, define or emphasize open space, give privacy, block wind and lessen the effects of solar radiation. 2. Although the landscape plan should reflect plants at maturity, landscaping should be considered as a design element harmonizing site plans and building design only to the extent of its effect in five years. This could mean using significantly larger initial plant stock for those project designs which rely heavily upon landscaping to provide relief for building and site design or screen the project. 4. Transition areas adjacent to buildings and parking lots should be landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This provides a tiered visual transition between the open and built environments, and breaks up wall masses. 5. The design orientation for landscaped areas is largely discussed in Section I: Site Plan guidelines. This section focuses on the technical standards to be recognized in designing such landscape areas. 6. In general, landscape materials should be selected and sited to produce a hardy and drought - resistant landscape area consistent with project design. Selection 20 should include consideration of soil type and depth, spacing, exposure to sun and wind, slope and contours of the site, building walls and overhangs, and compatibility of new plant material with existing vegetation to be preserved on the site. All plant materials should be installed to current nursery industry standards which would include, but not be limited to the following or equivalent: • Landscape -plant material should be properly guyed and staked to current industry standards. • Deciduous trees should be fully branched. • Evergreen trees should be a minimum of 8 feet in height at the time of planting. • All plant rows should be staggered for effective covering. • Ground cover should be supplied at the time of planting in minimum of 4 -inch containers as appropriate to achieve 90% coverage in 3 years, or as sod. • Planting of trees in compacted soils should be prohibited unless minimum 12 inch gravel drain III. LANDSCAPE /SITE 1411VATMENT Fig. 31: Landscaping along street frontages should be high quality and reflect three tiers of plants. Fig. 32: Perimeter landscaping along the side and rear lot lines provide year -round buffering and transition. I3'.0" III %. 1 M X c sumps are installed under each tree to a minimum 36 inch depth, or the subgrade soil beyond the planting pit is rototilled to a 9 inch depth to the drip line or a ge of planter, whichever is less. Front yard p ant material should reflect the following: • shrubs, : • lons at time of • frog • deciduous t ; s to be •- '. mum 2 1/2 inch caliper at time of plantin : • alled and burlapped • evergreen - - es to 8 - 10 feet in height at time of plan ' ' :, root balled • • burlapped • or uivalent per Board o chitectural Review. 21 Side and rear yard plant materials should reflect the following: • shrubs, 2 gallons at time of s (i.e. map et on ,b • deciduous tr an avg. of 30 at time of planti • evergreen trees (i. avg. of 25 fee of planting, b ed an • or equivalent per Boar Perimeter landscaping around reflect the following: • tree planting 20 30 ft. on - • ter depending upon size (i.e., small specie - such as Japanese flowering cherry sh• d ha 20 ft. o.c. spacing) • perimeter shrub s ree • shrubs to be 2 g • ► ons • time of planting, spaced to achieve year-ro d re; ring to a 3 ft. height in five years • or equivalent per Board of chitectural Review. Plant materials following: • evergreen trees o be 8 f. - t at time of planting, balled and burlap • deciduous trees to , inch caliper at time of planting • 2 gallon shrubs. Plants used for screenin of shrubs, minimum of larger) at the time of p1 inches on center (or used). lanting s and ash) to be spaced ter and 2 -1/2 inch caliper ed and burlapped pine and fir) to be spaced an ter and 7 feet in height at time burlapped f Architectural Review. p g areas should 'thin parking are • s should reflect the r storage should consist es in height (1 gallon or spaced a minimum of 24 'f larger plant material M. LANDSCAPE/SITE APEATMENT W n_7 Scan Fig. 33: A typical shrub hedge separating use areas with standard nursery stock. }� c....o c( Cj A-0 r-\ c — c z 22 • 7. Grass seeding should April 1st and ober Some form of e • sio seeding is not com s seeding or mech •;- slopes. y be permitted between 5th to assure germination. control will be necessary if eted during this period Hydro- spreading should be used on 8. Shrubs planted to define spaces or separate environments should be planted as a staggered double row whenever possible. This provides the significant depth especially necessary to separate environments such as parking areas from grassed fields and building entries. These shrubs s • . d be continuous band in a double staggered stock spaced a m depending on the cific paced to provide a lush ears. This could be reflected of plants for typical nursery of 36 inches on center, al. 9. Shrub beds should be no more than a two feet wide per typical row of nursery stock plants, in order to minimize barked area and maximize live ground cover. A typical five foot wide barked planting bed for a single row of shrubs is not acceptable. 10. Plant materi drought resistant s 11. The native character wetlands sho d be pro habitat for a 'de takeover by species such Himalayan b habitat for • ' ous rode ould generally include native hillsides, ravines and and enhanced to provide e of wildlife. Invasion and vigorously growing non -native glish ivy; St. John's wort, and tend to exclusively promote species. 12. Only native species whic ' enhance a diverse habitat should be planted the maining natural hillsides, ravines, and wetlands. ' ant buffer areas where the selection of introduced • • - 'es is carefully reviewed for potential invasion natural areas should be recognized on a e -by -si e basis by the landscape architect. III. LANDSCAPE /SITE illEATMENT Trees 4 o - 6-c' ; n G'-J i 23 13. Trees should be planted at an average rate of 1 per 30 linear feet shrub beds shoul row, and ground cove 3 years except fo Figures 35-3 14. Landscape design and rear perimeters are 15. Trees should gen and burlapped, and ha shown below. This increased based on the prominence of locat} the applicant's as erti within five years. 16. An example of increasing tree size should be along the treet frontage when large paved areas - being mode ted or where dominating wall mass : are being soften a . An example of decreasing tr - ize would be where a st.•.d of trees is being plant • and only a few specimen qu. ' trees are needed define the planting area and provi visual pl g depth. Typical planting sizes are s ' wn belo Tree Type • Large stature deciduou (i.e. maple, ash, oak) Small stature tree (i.e. Japanese pear or flowering dogwood) Large stature ever: een (i.e. pine or fir) transition area (grouping is an option), design - • a staggered double uld achieve 90% coverage in e., 2 foot) planter beds. r separating uses. ow various optio es for required front, side ted in figures 31 and 32. sperm en quality, balled um size at planting as um tree size may be nt of buffering demanded, , an • ize necessary to realize on of landscape prominence Minimum Planting Size 1/2 inch caliper 8 ft. h fight 1 3/4 inch caliper III. LANDSCAPE /SITVtEATMENT Protection of Existing Trees Fig. 34: Tree wells can help save hillside trees only to a depth of 4 feet. Fig. 35: Trees protected with a chain link fence at the drip line during construction. 24 • 17. Significant existing trees should be protected as discussed under Site Planning. 18. The survival and general health of a tree depends as much on the condition of its root system as it does on the factors influencing the above - ground portion. This vital root system extends out to, and sometimes beyond the tree's drip line (the outermost reach of branches). Any significant disturbance to the root area, such as high surface compaction, root severing, over - watering and/or removal of organic material in which the tree has composted over several years, will almost certainly kill the tree. Tree removal and replacement would be required after a few seasons of progressive deterioration. Based upon identification and examination, an evaluation can be made to determine which trees will prove valuable to the site design. This evaluation is an important factor in the placement and design of buildings, circulation patterns and other site elements. 19. Significant trees should be protected during construction with a chain -link fence or plastic vinyl construction fence at the drip line. The protection fence should be installed prior to issuance of grading permit. Removal or destruction of fencing should be cause for a Stop Work Order until reviewed by City staff. III. LANDSCAPE /SITE fEATMENT Design for Screening and Separation Fig. 36: Separation of marginally compatible uses with only plants. Are,G -S r 104_, ' eSlb t e..) 25 . • 20. Landscape design for screening and separation can be oriented toward full privacy, separation of uses, or screening unsightly elements such as dumpsters, etc. 21. Full privacy should require an opaque fence or evergreen barrier at least six feet high or above eye level, depending on the angle of view. Noise reduction requires a dense fence (i.e., concrete/masonry) wall or berm in addition to plantings. 22. Area separation requires a continuous physical barrier not less than three feet high. A greater degree of separation would require a higher opaque barrier. A separation planting strip could be deciduous or evergreen. 23. Landscape design for screening should reflect the degree of concealment desired. Plants are not often effective in providing full screening; they should be used in combination with a wall or landform. Plant screens are most effective when used to soften or provide soft transition to a screen wall or break up the visual lines of a partially concealed structure. 24. A privacy fence should be required along side and rear yards if single family zones as specified below: __ _ • (6 feet high i • s obscuring wood (or equivalent) fence • ezterior'materials and colors shall be consistent with building architecture. 25. The following are altemative design solutions for various degrees of screening and separation: Alternative 1. Using only plantings for partial separation of marginally compatible uses such as parking from residences or recreational sites. Area: Width not less than 15 feet. At least one row of deciduous and evergreen staggered and spaced not more than 15 feet apart. At least one row of evergreen shrubs spaced not more than five feet apart which will grow to form a continuous hedge at least five feet in height within three years of planting. Lawn, low growing evergreen shrubs, and evergreen ground cover covering the balance of the area. trees 111. LA1■1V3l.Arr.iai 1E. l i'.i tia 1YLL \ a Fig. 37: Separation of marginally compatible uses with fencing and plants. Fig. 38: Full separation of incompatible uses with masonry wall and plants. Alternative 2. Using a fence and planting for full visual l • ....1- , 1•, • it :r n Area: Width not to be less than 10 feet. At least one row of deciduous and/or evergreen shrubs spaced not more than 5 feet apart. Lawn, low growing evergreen shrubs, and evergreen ground cover over the balance of the area. Alternative 3. Using a wall and planting for full Separation of incompatible uses. This structural approach is often the only effective mitigation of impacts such as high freeway noise on outdoor recreation areas. 26 Area: Width not to be less than 5 feet. A masonry wall not less than 6 feet in height and no less than 5 feet of landscaping :transition. III. LANDSCAPE/SITE WATMENT Interior Parking Area Landscaping Usable Outdoor Space Recreation Area Design Fig. 39: Recreation area design for safety includes siting the children's play lot in a central or easily observed area. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE - l COMMON OPEN SPACE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE Jc 'rte ' `mac- -S "�-� ►�1c ve ves S. t4 C J u-' C� ` r- okie''` C SC' fi - - 'M4`'`� - � fv\,J �C i s -ice' A- T T'� 'l.� r ` ` IJ' e-AA 'e, b a- on . Nick.;,, fit _ ✓ �o.� � �e� y ✓tc -,-a c v ;1--k 27 26. Minimum par and interior areas Tukwila Zoning C are shown in figu a landscaping at the perimeter 'fled in Chapter 18.52 of the De concepts for these areas 11,12,1' . d 32. 27. As much design emphasis should be put into developing outdoor spaces as the buildings themselves. Outdoor space tends to be unusable when it is simply • the "leftovers" after buildings are placed on the land. (See Fig. 6) 28. Buildings or other substantial structures should be used to reduce the impact of noise sources when such noise would interfere with normal conversation as identified in Federal Environmental Protection Agency guidelines (i.e., 55 -65 dBa). 29. Outdoor spaces should have a definite functional shape, be internally designed to fulfill that function, and be functionally associated with a specific unit or unit group (see "Defensible Space" in Site Plan guidelines). 301 A fall . range of active and passive recreation opportuni4s should be provided for the various resident age groups: infant (0-4), child (5 -12), teen (13- 1 S) - and'adult. 31. Infant needs may be satisfied by passive spaces and overlap with child facilities. 32. The child group is the critical group for on -site recreation design since members tend to use facilities independent of parental supervision, are not necessarily old enough to travel streets to relatively distant public parks, and make complex demands of recreation spaces. III. LANDSCAPE /SITE VEATMENI' Fig. 40: A recreation space for the 5 -12 year old group which facilitates group interaction and skill testing. I • Hard surface areas for wheeled toys and tricycles. 33. At least one on -site play area designed for the child group should be provided. This area design should be characterized by interactive group equipment which tests skills. The Parks and Recreation Director should be consulted in the review of acceptable design proposals. 34. The child play area should reflect the design elements below: • Visually accessible to casual surveillance by passersby and residents. This is a key element in facility safety and generally requires a central location. • Care should be taken to provide separation of play areas from general impersonal passersby for security. 28 • Easy safe access from residence to play area(s). • Equipment with zones to satisfy the specific sensory and skill needs up to age 12. • Use water and sand if limited to two materials. These provide more possibilities for play and fun than all asphalt deserts combined. The ability to move over, under, around or through something affords a child control. He can change his relationship to it. • A child should be able to control his level of involvement with others. Make small sheltered areas for solitary play, larger spaces for group play. • An adjacent sitting area for monitoring the children. I cr 4_35. Teen and adult on -site recreation facility demand �t SSv -5 0 �f" O ' `-- cr' may be satisfied with active recreation fields and sport courts, recreation rooms, pools and passive recreation trails. Linkages with existing public trail and park facilities should be made where possible, either through immediate constriction or agreement to jointly participate in the coordinated provision of such a linkage at a later date. IV. MISCELLANEOUS ORUCTURES/STREET FURNi[1RE Lighting Fig. 41: Maximum parking area Tight standard height is 20 feet or the building height; whichever is less. Fig. 42: Maximum grounds lighting standard height is 15 feet. 29 1. All exterior lighting (i.e., distribution, intensity, and pattern) should reflect project architectural design. 2. Exterior lighting should be provided in parking areas and along intemal pedestrian walkways to assure adequate and safe pedestrian circulation for residential activities and guests. 3. Maximum parking area light standard height should be 20 feet or the height of the building; whichever is less. 4. Maximum walkway and grounds lighting should be 15 feet. Light fixture height is limited to enhance a sense of scale and enclosure for common areas at night. 5. All lighting standards should have glare cut -off features to avoid off -site spill-over. 6. Fixtures should be placed so that light pattems overlap at a height of 7 feet which is sufficiently high to vertically illuminate a person's body. This is particularly important consideration now that lighting fixture manufacturers are designing luminaries with highly controlled light patterns. 7. At hazardous locations, such as changes of grade, lower level supplemental lighting or additional overhead units should be used. Where low -level lighting (below 5 feet) is used, fixtures should be placed in such a way that they do not produce glare. Most eye levels occur between 3 feet 8 inches for wheelchair users and 6 feet for standing adults. 8. The walkway lighting is provided primarily by low fixtures, there should be sufficient peripheral lighting to illuminate the immediate surroundings. Peripheral lighting contributes to a feeling of security in an individual because he can see into his surroundings to determine whether or not passage through an area is safe. Such an area should be lighted so that the object or person may be seen directly or in silhouette. IV. MISCELLANEOUS .RUCTURES /STREET FUR T URE Fencing, Walls, and Screening 9. All fencing, walls, and screening should reflect building architecture and be harmonious with adjacent project designs. This should include consideration of proportion, color, texture, and materials. Perimeter fencing should be designed to be attractive from both sides. Fig. 43: Dumpsters are sited and screened to minimize prominence. Street Furniture 30 10. Fencing and walls along street frontages should define space but be designed to be visually open and inviting to support a lively pedestrian environment. 11. All exterior mechanical equipment including HVAC, electrical equipment, storage tanks and satellite dishes, must be screened from on -site and off -site view. 12. Several small dumpsters adjacent to buildings such as garages are preferable to a single large free standing site. Dumpsters should have solid architectural wall screening only to the container height to minimize its prominence. 13. Recycling containers and areas should conform to King County standards or as amended by Tukwila standards. 14. All garbage container lids should be light weight and designed for operation by physically frail persons. 15. Street furniture should be coordinated to carry out the project's design concept. 16. Opportunities for social gathering by residents in shared open spaces should be enhanced by the provision of seating and other amenities. The use of bollards and other barrier features should be provided to separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian- oriented areas.